People v. Mendoza
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Sergio Mendoza was charged with falsification of a public or official document. The information alleged that Mendoza, an inspector in the Division of Sanitary Engineering of the City Health Officer's Office in Manila, unlawfully erased the name "Elena Manansala" and the figure "1.00" from Official Receipt No. 188903-V. He then inserted "Roberto B. Alamaden," "forty-six only," and the figure "46," making it appear that the receipt was issued to Roberto B. Almaden for a payment of P46, when in reality, the receipt was issued to Elena Manansala for the payment of P1 for a duplicate building fee. Procedural History: Upon arraignment, Mendoza pleaded not guilty. However, on February 18, 1952, with the consent of the court and the prosecuting attorney, and assisted by counsel, he changed his plea to guilty for the crime of falsification as described and punished in the last paragraph of Article 172 of the Revised Penal Code. The trial court sentenced him to 4 months and 1 day of arresto mayor, a fine of P50, or subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency, and costs. Mendoza appealed this sentence. The Petition: On June 14, 1952, the attorney de oficio appointed for the appellant filed a motion stating he could find no legal basis to question the penalty imposed, which was the sole issue of the appeal. This motion was considered the appellant's brief. Subsequently, another attorney, Carlos Perfecto, entered an appearance and filed a notice to withdraw the appeal, stating the appellant was willing to serve the imposed sentence. The court ordered the appellant to comment on this withdrawal, but he failed to do so. The Solicitor General filed a brief for the appellee, recommending a different penalty range. The Supreme Court, in its review, found that the trial court misapplied Section 4, Rule 114, by allowing a plea of guilty to a lesser offense not necessarily included in the original charge. The Court also noted that the withdrawal of the appeal was generally allowed and, given the appellant's failure to disown his attorney's actions, granted the motion for dismissal.
Issue(s)
Whether the withdrawal of the appeal by counsel should be granted despite the appellant's silence. Whether a plea of guilty to a lesser offense under Article 172 of the Revised Penal Code is legally permissible when the original charge is falsification of a public document by a public officer under Article 171.
Ruling
The appeal is dismissed. The Court found that the withdrawal of the appeal was valid and granted.
Ratio Decidendi
On Issue 1: The Court held that the withdrawal of an appeal is generally allowed and granted if the motion is filed before the appellee's brief is submitted. It emphasized the legal presumption that an attorney has the authority to appear and act for their client. In this case, although the motion to withdraw was filed by counsel, the Court provided the appellant an opportunity to disown the action. Because Mendoza remained silent after being served with the resolution in jail, the Court concluded that his silence leaned toward confirmation rather than disavowal. Therefore, the authority of the counsel to withdraw the appeal was upheld, and the dismissal was granted. On Issue 2: The Court observed that the trial court misapplied Rule 114, Section 4, regarding the substitution of a plea for a lesser offense. Falsification of a public document by a public officer (Article 171) is a very serious crime, and the accused, as an employee of the City Health Office, was not a private person. The 'lesser offense' under the last paragraph of Article 172 involves a private individual introducing false documents in a judicial proceeding, which the Court determined is not necessarily included in the original charge. The Court noted that neither the penalty imposed by the trial court nor that recommended by the Solicitor General followed the range provided by law for the original charge. However, due to the dismissal of the appeal, the Court did not modify the lower court's sentence.
Main Doctrine
The crime of falsification of a public document, as defined and punished under Article 172 of the Revised Penal Code, especially when committed by a public officer or employee, is a serious offense with a prescribed penalty. A plea to a lesser offense under Section 4, Rule 114 of the Rules of Court is only permissible if the lesser offense is necessarily included in the offense charged; otherwise, such substitution of plea is unlawful. The withdrawal of an appeal, if executed by counsel with apparent authority and not disavowed by the appellant after notice, is generally granted by the Court.