GR L 15372; (March, 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 about 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 Supreme Court affirmed the trial court’s decision. The plea of guilty cannot be considered a mitigating circumstance under Article 13, paragraph 7 of the Revised Penal Code, as interpreted by jurisprudence. For a plea of guilty to be mitigating, 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 second and third requirements were not met. The plea was not spontaneous, as the appellant changed his plea from not guilty to guilty more than one year (1 year, 3 months, and 7 days) after his initial arraignment, indicating it was likely motivated by fear of conviction rather than sincere repentance. Furthermore, the plea was made only after the prosecution had already commenced presenting its evidence (specifically, after the testimony of Dr. Arcilla). Following the precedent in People vs. Dela Cruz, an accused who submits to the law only after the prosecution has presented some evidence does not deserve the benefits of the mitigating circumstance. Therefore, the trial court correctly did not consider the plea as mitigating. The decision was affirmed, with costs against the appellant.