G.R. No. L-11922; April 16, 1959
THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. FLORENTINO MAMATIK, defendant-appellant.

FACTS

Florentino Mamatik was charged with acts of lasciviousness against a thirteen-year-old girl in an uninhabited place. At his initial arraignment before the Court of First Instance of La Union, he appeared without counsel, and the court appointed Atty. Ramon R. Villalon, Jr. as his counsel de oficio. The arraignment was postponed to December 10, 1956, to allow the counsel to confer with the accused. On December 10, the accused appeared without his counsel de oficio. When the court asked about his counsel, Mamatik stated a lawyer was no longer necessary because he would plead guilty. After the information was read to him in the Ilocano dialect, which he understood, he entered a plea of guilty. The court immediately sentenced him to an indeterminate prison term ranging from five months of arresto mayor to two years, four months, and one day of prision correccional, and to pay costs. A commitment order (mittimus) was issued the same day, stating his imprisonment would commence on December 10, 1956. On December 19, 1956, Atty. Manuel B. Lasmarias, as new counsel for the defendant, filed a motion for reconsideration, alleging that the accused had no counsel during arraignment and that mitigating facts not presented to the court could reduce the penalty. The trial court denied the motion on December 26, 1956, ruling that its decision had already become final because the accused had started serving his sentence on the day it was pronounced. The accused appealed from this order of denial.

ISSUE

1. Whether the trial court erred in allowing the appellant to enter a plea of guilty without his counsel de oficio present.
2. Whether the trial court erred in ruling that its decision had become final due to the partial service of the sentence by the appellant.
3. Whether the trial court erred in not reopening the case based on the grounds in the motion for reconsideration.

RULING

The Supreme Court affirmed the trial court’s order denying the motion for reconsideration, finding the appeal without merit.
1. On the plea of guilty without counsel: The Court held that the trial court proceeded cautiously and ensured the accused’s rights were protected. The transcript showed the court inquired if the accused needed a lawyer for arraignment and for entering a plea, to which the accused repeatedly answered “No more.” The information was read to him in a dialect he understood before he pleaded guilty. The Court noted that between the initial hearing date (December 4) and the arraignment (December 10), the appointed counsel de oficio must have conferred with and advised the accused. The plea was entered voluntarily.
2. On the finality of the judgment: The Court ruled that the judgment had become final. Under Section 7, Rule 116 of the Rules of Court, a judgment becomes final after the appeal period expires or when the sentence has been partially or totally served. The record showed the appellant voluntarily commenced serving his prison sentence on the same day it was imposed (December 10), as evidenced by the mittimus issued that day. The mittimus is final process in a criminal case, carrying the judgment into effect. The motion for reconsideration was filed only on December 19, after service had begun.
3. On not reopening the case: The Court found no reason to reopen the case. The appellant’s plea of guilty was not questioned; his motion only sought to present mitigating circumstances. The Court noted that the plea of guilty had already been considered as a mitigating circumstance, offsetting the aggravating circumstance of the crime being committed in an uninhabited place. No other mitigating circumstances were apparent or brought to the trial court’s attention earlier by the accused or his initial counsel.
The order was affirmed with costs.