GR L 13290; (June, 1960) (Digest)
G.R. No. L-13290; June 30, 1960
THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. AMBROSIO MANCERA, defendant-appellant.
FACTS
The accused, Ambrosio Mancera, was originally charged with frustrated homicide in the Court of First Instance of Surigao. He initially pleaded not guilty. When the case was called for trial, the accused, through counsel, manifested his willingness to plead guilty to the lesser crime of serious physical injuries, alleging no intent to kill. With the fiscal’s approval and the court’s consent, the information was amended accordingly. The accused then withdrew his not guilty plea and entered a plea of guilty to the amended information for serious physical injuries. He subsequently requested a hearing to prove drunkenness as a mitigating circumstance. After trial on this issue, the lower court found him guilty of serious physical injuries under Article 263, paragraph 4 of the Revised Penal Code. The court refused to consider the mitigating circumstance of drunkenness (finding him a habitual drunkard) and also denied the mitigating circumstance of a plea of guilty, reasoning that he was not pleading guilty to the original charge of frustrated homicide but to a lesser offense. The court sentenced him to an indeterminate penalty. The accused appealed directly to the Supreme Court, contesting the denial of the mitigating circumstance of plea of guilty.
ISSUE
Whether the accused is entitled to the mitigating circumstance of a plea of guilty after the original information for frustrated homicide was amended to serious physical injuries and he pleaded guilty to the amended charge.
RULING
Yes. The Supreme Court ruled that the accused should be given the benefit of the mitigating circumstance of plea of guilty. The Court distinguished its prior jurisprudence: the rule in People vs. Noble and People vs. Saturnino (that an offer to plead guilty to a lesser offense is not mitigating) applies where the accused merely makes an offer. In contrast, the doctrine in People vs. Calma governs where the accused signifies an intention to plead guilty to a lesser offense, the information is accordingly amended, and the accused then pleads guilty to the amended information. This case falls under the Calma doctrine because the fiscal agreed to amend the information (due to a belief he could not prove intent to kill), and only after the amendment did the accused plead guilty to the new charge. With one mitigating circumstance (plea of guilty) and no aggravating circumstances, the penalty for serious physical injuries under Article 263(4) should be imposed in its minimum period (4 months and 1 day of arresto mayor to 1 year of prision correccional). The Indeterminate Sentence Law does not apply as the maximum imposable penalty does not exceed one year. The appealed decision was modified by reducing the penalty to 4 months and 1 day of arresto mayor, and affirmed in all other respects.