GR L 21597; (March, 1965) (Digest)
G.R. No. L-21597; March 31, 1965
THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. LEANDRO MONTE y CASTRO, defendant-appellant.
FACTS
The defendant-appellant, Leandro Monte y Castro, was accused of qualified theft of goods valued at P250. Upon arraignment, he pleaded guilty to the charge. The Court of First Instance of Manila then rendered a judgment sentencing him to an indeterminate penalty ranging from four (4) years, two (2) months and one (1) day of prision correccional to eight (8) years and one (1) day of prision mayor, and to pay the costs. The appellant filed a notice of appeal. On appeal, he alleges that he had voluntarily surrendered to the authorities, sensing his guilt, and that his voluntary confession of guilt before the trial court automatically suppressed his right to introduce evidence. He claims the trial court committed an error by not considering the mitigating circumstance of voluntary surrender. He prays for the case to be remanded to the lower court to allow him an opportunity to prove this mitigating circumstance.
ISSUE
Whether the case should be remanded to the lower court to allow the appellant to prove the alleged mitigating circumstance of voluntary surrender to the authorities.
RULING
No. The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the lower court. The record contains nothing to suggest that the appellant had voluntarily surrendered to the authorities. Although he was not assisted by counsel during his plea and sentencing (having waived that right), his notice of appeal was filed by his present counsel. The Court reasoned that if the appellant had truly surrendered voluntarily, his counsel could have and likely would have filed a motion in the court of first instance for an opportunity to establish that mitigating circumstance. Counsel provided no explanation for this failure. Furthermore, there was no supporting affidavit from the appellant regarding the alleged surrender and no satisfactory explanation that the failure to seek proof in the lower court was due to excusable neglect. Therefore, the relief prayed for could not be granted. The decision appealed from was found to be in accordance with the facts and the law.