GR L 12120; (April, 1958) (Digest)
G.R. No. L-12120; April 28, 1958
THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. SIMPLICIO AGITO, defendant-appellant.
FACTS
Simplicio Agito was charged with triple homicide and serious physical injuries through reckless imprudence before the Court of First Instance of Occidental Mindoro. He initially pleaded not guilty but later withdrew that plea and substituted it with a plea of guilty. The court found him guilty of the crime charged as defined in Article 365, paragraph 6, subsection 2, of the Revised Penal Code and sentenced him to an indeterminate penalty of 1 year and 1 day to 3 years, 6 months, and 21 days. The accused appealed, raising questions of law, notwithstanding his plea of guilty. The main issue raised refers to the propriety of the penalty imposed.
ISSUE
1. Whether the trial court erred in imposing the penalty under Article 365, paragraph 6, subsection 2, of the Revised Penal Code (which applies when the imprudence or negligence is “with violation of the Automobile Law”) despite the information not alleging in so many words a violation of the Automobile Law.
2. Whether the trial court erred in not considering the mitigating circumstance of a plea of guilty to reduce the penalty to the minimum period.
RULING
1. On the first issue: The Supreme Court held that the trial court did not err. While the information did not specifically designate a violation of the Automobile Law, the facts alleged clearly constituted such a violation. The information stated that due to the accused’s reckless or unreasonably fast driving, an accident occurred resulting in death and serious injury, which falls under Section 67(d) of Act No. 3992 (Motor Vehicle Law), as amended. The Court emphasized that the crime charged is described by the facts stated in the information, not by the technical designation in its caption. Therefore, the penalty under Article 365, paragraph 6, subsection 2, was properly applied.
2. On the second issue: The Supreme Court held that the trial court did not err in not applying the mitigating circumstance of a plea of guilty to reduce the penalty. Article 365, paragraph 5, of the Revised Penal Code, as amended by Republic Act No. 384, provides that in imposing penalties for offenses committed through imprudence or negligence, “the courts shall exercise their sound discretion, without regard to the rules prescribed in Article sixty-four.” Since Article 64 contains the rules for the application of mitigating and aggravating circumstances, the plea of guilty could not be considered to reduce the penalty in this case.
The decision appealed from was affirmed.