GR L 15372; (April, 1960) (Digest)
G.R. No. L-15372; April 29, 1960
THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. VICENTE QUESADA y BERNAL, defendant-appellant.
FACTS
Vicente Quesada y Bernal was charged with frustrated homicide before the Court of First Instance of Manila. He initially pleaded not guilty upon arraignment. During the trial, the prosecution presented Dr. Crisostomo Arcilla, who testified regarding the wounds of the victim, Hugodino Lim y Cosin. Subsequently, the accused, through counsel, petitioned to withdraw his plea of not guilty and substitute it with a plea of guilty. The court granted the petition. Upon rearraignment, he pleaded guilty and was allowed to prove the mitigating circumstance of voluntary surrender. The trial court rendered a decision sentencing him to an indeterminate penalty of not less than 2 years, 4 months, and 1 day of prision correccional to not more than 8 years and 1 day of prision mayor, plus indemnity and costs. The accused appealed to the Court of Appeals, which certified the case to the Supreme Court on the ground that only questions of law were involved.
ISSUE
Whether the trial court erred in not considering the appellant’s plea of guilty as a mitigating circumstance.
RULING
No, the trial court did not err. The Supreme Court affirmed the trial court’s decision. For a plea of guilty to be considered a mitigating circumstance under Article 13, paragraph 7 of the Revised Penal Code, it must be made (1) in open court, (2) spontaneously, and (3) prior to the presentation of evidence for the prosecution. In this case, the appellant’s plea failed to meet the second and third requirements. His plea was not spontaneous, as it was made more than one year and three months after his initial plea of not guilty, suggesting it was motivated by fear of eventual conviction rather than sincere repentance. Furthermore, the plea was entered only after the prosecution had already commenced presenting its evidence (specifically, the testimony of Dr. Arcilla). Therefore, the appellant was not entitled to the mitigating circumstance of a plea of guilty. The decision appealed from was affirmed.