G.R. No. L-5563; July 31, 1953
THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. SERGIO MENDOZA, defendant-appellant.

FACTS

Sergio Mendoza, an inspector of the Division of Sanitary Engineering of the Office of the City Health Officer of Manila, was charged with falsification of a public or official document. The information alleged that on or about July 27, 1949, he willfully falsified Official Receipt No. 188903-V by erasing the name “Elena Manansala” and the figure “1.00,” and inserting the name “Roberto B. Alamaden” and the figure “46,” making it appear the receipt was issued to Alamaden for P46, when it was originally issued to Manansala for P1. Upon arraignment, he pleaded not guilty. On the trial date, February 18, 1952, with the court’s and prosecutor’s consent, Mendoza, assisted by counsel, changed his plea to guilty for the crime of falsification under the last paragraph of Article 172 of the Revised Penal Code. The trial court then sentenced him to 4 months and 1 day of arresto mayor, a P50 fine (with subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency), and costs. He appealed. His court-appointed attorney de oficio later filed a motion stating he could not question the legality of the imposed penalty, which was treated as the appellant’s brief. Another attorney, Carlos Perfecto, filed a notice to withdraw the appeal, stating Mendoza was ready to serve his sentence. The appellant was served copies and required to comment but failed to do so. The Solicitor General filed a brief for the appellee, recommending a different penalty, arguing the trial court’s penalty was below the legal range.

ISSUE

Whether the trial court correctly applied the law in accepting the defendant’s change of plea to a lesser offense and imposing the corresponding penalty.

RULING

No. The Supreme Court held that the trial court misapplied Section 4, Rule 114 (now Rule 116) of the Rules of Court. The crime charged was falsification of a public document by a public officer or employee (or a private individual), a serious crime under Article 171 of the Revised Penal Code. The crime to which Mendoza pleaded guilty—falsification under the last paragraph of Article 172 (pertaining to a private individual who introduces false documents in judicial proceedings)—is not necessarily included in the crime charged. Therefore, the substitution of plea was not lawful. Consequently, neither the penalty imposed by the trial court nor that recommended by the Solicitor General was correct. The proper penalty should be not less than 4 months and 1 day of arresto mayor as minimum, and not less than 3 years, 6 months, and 21 days and not more than 4 years, 9 months, and 10 days of prision correccional as maximum, plus the accessories of the law, a P50 fine (or subsidiary imprisonment), and costs. However, regarding the appeal, the Court granted the motion for its dismissal. It found that attorney Carlos Perfecto presumably had authority to withdraw it, and the appellant’s failure to disown this action after being given an opportunity confirmed it. The appeal was dismissed.