G.R. No. L-47738 January 12, 1987
THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. ROGELIO LIMOSNERO, defendant-appellant.

FACTS

Rogelio Limosnero was charged with murder for fatally stabbing Marcelino Caga-anan while the victim was asleep and defenseless. The information alleged the qualifying circumstance of treachery and the aggravating circumstances of evident premeditation and obvious ungratefulness. Upon arraignment, Limosnero pleaded guilty but specifically denied committing the crime with evident premeditation and obvious ungratefulness. Consequently, the trial court entered a plea of not guilty for him. During trial, the prosecution presented seven witnesses. Limosnero testified, admitting the killing but claiming he had no prior quarrel with the victim and was allegedly persuaded to commit the act by the victim’s wife, with whom he was having an illicit relationship.
The trial court convicted Limosnero of murder, finding treachery present but rejecting the alleged aggravating circumstances for lack of proof. Although recognizing him as a youthful offender under Presidential Decree No. 603, being 18 years old at the time of the crime, the court denied a suspended sentence. It cited P.D. No. 1179, which prohibits suspension for offenses punishable by life imprisonment, and noted Limosnero did not apply for it. He was sentenced to reclusion perpetua and ordered to indemnify the heirs.

ISSUE

The issues are: (1) whether the trial court erred in not crediting the mitigating circumstance of plea of guilty; and (2) whether it erred in not granting a suspended sentence under P.D. No. 603.

RULING

The Supreme Court modified the trial court’s decision. On the first issue, the Court held that Limosnero is entitled to the mitigating circumstance of a plea of guilty. Although his plea was qualified as he denied the alleged aggravating circumstances, this qualification did not negate his admission of guilt for the core offense of murder. The Court reasoned that a qualified plea, which merely contests unfounded allegations of aggravating circumstances, should not deprive an accused of this mitigating benefit. To rule otherwise would allow the prosecution to nullify the plea’s mitigating effect by inserting baseless aggravating allegations. Thus, the plea of guilty was properly considered mitigating.
On the second issue, the Court found the claim for a suspended sentence under P.D. No. 603 moot and academic. Jurisprudence establishes that an accused who reaches the age of majority during the appeal is no longer entitled to a suspended sentence. Limosnero was 27 years old at the time of the Supreme Court’s decision, having passed the age of 21. Therefore, the question of his entitlement to a suspended sentence as a youthful offender was rendered irrelevant by his having attained majority.
Consequently, with the mitigating circumstance of plea of guilty appreciated, the indeterminate penalty was reduced. The Court affirmed the conviction but modified the penalty to an indeterminate sentence of 10 years and 1 day of prision mayor as minimum to 17 years, 4 months and 1 day of reclusion temporal as maximum. The indemnity was also increased to P30,000.00.