G.R. No. L-724; April 30, 1947
EL PUEBLO DE FILIPINAS, querellante-apelado, vs. CONRADO L. ZULUETA, acusado-apelante.

FACTS

Conrado L. Zulueta was accused in the Court of First Instance of Manila of the crime of qualified theft for having taken a camera valued at P350. At the hearing, he pleaded not guilty, and the prosecution rested its case after presenting only one witness. Instead of presenting his defense, the accused asked for a continuance. When the hearing resumed on June 28, 1946, the defense presented a motion asking permission for the accused to withdraw his plea of not guilty and substitute it with a plea of guilty, on the condition that the value of the camera be reduced to P200. The prosecuting fiscal agreed. The accused then pleaded guilty to the offense as charged with the reduction in the value of the stolen item. Immediately, the court sentenced him to a minimum of six (6) months of arresto mayor and a maximum of two (2) years, four (4) months, and one (1) day of prision correccional, with costs. The accused appealed.

ISSUE

Whether the accused is entitled to the mitigating circumstance of a voluntary plea of guilty under Article 13, paragraph 7, of the Revised Penal Code.

RULING

No. The mitigating circumstance of a voluntary plea of guilty is not applicable. The accused did not make a “spontaneous confession of guilt before the court prior to the presentation of the evidence for the prosecution.” On the contrary, he pleaded guilty under a condition: that the value of the stolen item be reduced. There is no spontaneity in a conditional plea of guilty, especially one given after the prosecution had already presented its evidence. The fiscal’s conformity to the reduction was undoubtedly to reduce the penalty to be imposed on the accused, not because the camera was actually worth only P200. With the reduction in value, the applicable penalty was automatically lowered. The penalty for qualified theft of an item valued between P50 and P200, under the relevant provisions of the Revised Penal Code and the Indeterminate Sentence Law, would be arresto mayor in its medium period to prision correccional in its medium period. The appealed judgment was modified. The accused is sentenced to a minimum of six (6) months of arresto mayor and a maximum of four (4) years, two (2) months, and one (1) day of prision correccional, with costs.
SEPARATE OPINIONS:
* Justice Paras: Voted to consider the defendant’s plea after the reading of the amended information as a mitigating circumstance.
* Justice Perfecto (Dissenting): Addressed two issues raised by the appellant. First, on jurisdiction, he concluded that the lower court had jurisdiction as the crime was committed within the extraterritorial zone of Manila, and Executive Orders did not repeal the relevant provision of the Revised Administrative Code. Second, on the penalty, he argued that the plea of guilty was made to a new or amended information (alleging theft of a camera valued at P200), which initiated a new case. Since the evidence from the first case (where the plea was not guilty) could not be considered as presented in this new case, the plea was made prior to the presentation of evidence for the prosecution. Therefore, the appellant was entitled to the mitigating circumstance of a voluntary plea of guilty. He disagreed with the majority’s finding that the plea was not spontaneous and that the fiscal’s agreement to the reduced value was merely to lower the penalty, stating this imputed a falsehood to the fiscal and the court.