G.R. No. L-15865. October 30, 1961.
THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. MARDONIO SURBIDA alias MARDING, defendant-appellant.

FACTS

Mardonio Surbida, a 14-year-old minor, was charged with frustrated homicide before the Court of First Instance of Cagayan. The information alleged that he, armed with a knife and with intent to kill, willfully, unlawfully, and feloniously stabbed Juanito Salvador, performing all acts of execution for homicide, which was prevented only by timely medical assistance. Upon arraignment, Surbida, assisted by his counsel, voluntarily pleaded guilty to the charge.
The trial court, noting the accused’s age, applied Article 80 of the Revised Penal Code. Without receiving any evidence regarding the minor’s discernment, the court ordered Surbida’s confinement at Welfareville until he reached the age of majority, with periodic reports on his conduct and progress. Subsequently, through new counsel, Surbida filed a motion for new trial, contending that the court erred in failing to hear evidence to determine if he had acted with discernment at the time of the offense, a requisite for criminal liability under Article 12(3) of the Revised Penal Code for minors between 9 and 15 years of age. The denial of this motion prompted the present appeal.

ISSUE

Whether the trial court erred in convicting the minor appellant based solely on his plea of guilty to an information alleging acts committed “with intent to kill” and “willfully, unlawfully and feloniously,” without taking separate evidence to determine if he acted with discernment.

RULING

The Supreme Court affirmed the trial court’s order, finding no merit in the appeal. The Court held that when a minor between nine and fifteen years of age pleads guilty to an information containing specific allegations of criminal intent and manner, such a plea suffices to establish that the minor acted with discernment, eliminating the need for separate, positive proof on the matter.
The legal logic is anchored on the Court’s prior ruling in People v. Nieto. In that case, it was held that allegations in an information that the accused acted “with intent to kill” and “willfully, criminally and feloniously” signify more than mere knowledge of the difference between right and wrong. These terms collectively connote that the accused acted with the specific intention to commit the crime and with the understanding that the act was unlawful and penalized by law. Therefore, a plea of guilty to such a specific information constitutes an admission of having acted with such discernment. In Surbida’s case, the Court found this principle directly applicable. Furthermore, the Court noted that neither in the trial court nor on appeal did the appellant present any affidavit or evidence to dispute his mental capacity or claim a lack of discernment, reinforcing the validity of the conviction based on the judicial admission contained in his plea.