G.R. No. L-23508 December 11, 1967
THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. NELLY P. CORTEZ, defendant-appellant.

FACTS

A complaint for grave slander was filed against Nelly P. Cortez on January 16, 1964, in the Court of First Instance of Manila. The complaint alleged that on or about November 14, 1963, Cortez publicly uttered slanderous words against the complainant, Julita Santos, a married woman with good reputation. At her arraignment on January 30, 1964, Cortez, waiving counsel, pleaded not guilty. The hearing was initially set for February 6, 1964, but was postponed to March 3, 1964, upon motion of her counsel de oficio. On March 3, 1964, the trial court rendered a decision stating that upon arraignment, assisted by counsel de oficio, Cortez voluntarily and spontaneously entered a plea of guilty, which she insisted on despite being informed of its consequences. The court found her guilty of grave slander and, appreciating the mitigating circumstance of a voluntary plea of guilty, sentenced her to four months and one day of arresto mayor. Cortez appealed. The Court of Appeals certified the appeal to the Supreme Court as involving only questions of law. In her brief, Cortez contended she never pleaded guilty and that the only plea of record was her initial “not guilty” plea. She noted that a page of the trial court’s record (page 15), allegedly containing the stenographic notes of the March 3 hearing, was missing, making it impossible to prove her claim. Both appellant and the Solicitor General requested a remand for trial. However, the Supreme Court found that in motions and an affidavit filed earlier in the Court of Appeals, Cortez had admitted pleading guilty but argued the court should have allowed her to present evidence to mitigate the penalty. She stated her appeal was not for reversal but for modification of the penalty, which she believed was excessive, and mentioned she was induced to plead guilty based on her lawyer’s assurance of a minimal fine.

ISSUE

Whether the trial court validly convicted the defendant based on a plea of guilty, notwithstanding her subsequent denial and the missing page of the record.

RULING

The Supreme Court affirmed the appealed judgment. The Court held that, based on the record, the defendant did plead guilty in the lower court. It noted her own admissions in her motions and affidavit filed in the Court of Appeals, where she conceded pleading guilty and sought only a penalty modification. The Court applied the presumption that official duty has been regularly performed under the Rules of Court. It concluded that the statement in the appealed decision accurately reflected the proceedings. Even assuming the plea was not formally entered in the record, such failure does not affect the validity of the proceedings under the Rules. Regarding the penalty, the Court found the slander, as alleged, was patently of a serious and insulting nature, warranting the penalty imposed under Article 358 of the Revised Penal Code (arresto mayor maximum to prision correccional minimum). The trial court correctly imposed the penalty, appreciating the mitigating circumstance of a voluntary plea of guilty. Costs were imposed against the appellant. The Supreme Court also directed a copy of the decision be transmitted to the Presiding Justice of the Court of Appeals for any investigation regarding the missing page of the trial court’s record.