People v. Ortiz
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Napoleon C. Ortiz, alias Leon, was charged in the Court of First Instance of Pangasinan with the murder of Alfredo Ducusion and the frustrated murder of his wife, Virginia Munar. Procedural History: After two witnesses for the prosecution had testified on the original information, the defendant, through counsel, expressed willingness to plead guilty to the lesser offenses of homicide and frustrated homicide. The Assistant Provincial Fiscal amended the information accordingly, and upon arraignment, the defendant pleaded guilty to the amended information. The defendant then presented the Chief of Police to prove the mitigating circumstance of voluntary surrender. The trial court rendered judgment, sentencing the accused to indeterminate penalties for homicide and frustrated homicide, ordering him to indemnify Virginia Munar, and to pay costs. The court refused to consider the plea of guilty as a mitigating circumstance because it was made after the prosecution had commenced presenting evidence. The Petition: The defendant appealed, claiming that the trial court erred in not considering the mitigating circumstance of plea of guilty.
Issue(s)
Whether the lower court erred in not considering the mitigating circumstance of plea of guilty in favor of the appellant. Whether the plea of guilty to an amended information, entered after the commencement of the trial on the original information, qualifies as a mitigating circumstance.
Ruling
The decision appealed from is modified. The defendant is sentenced to suffer an indeterminate penalty of not less than 2 years, 4 months and 1 day of prision correccional, nor more than 10 years of prision mayor for homicide, and not less than 6 months of arresto mayor, nor more than 2 years, 4 months and 1 day of prision correccional for frustrated homicide. The carbine used by the appellant is ordered confiscated. The appealed judgment is affirmed in all other respects.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of whether the lower court erred in not considering the mitigating circumstance of plea of guilty: The Supreme Court found the appellant's contention meritorious, citing its decision in People vs. Intal. The Court acknowledged that the trial had commenced on the original information for murder and frustrated murder. However, when the prosecution, with leave of court, amended the information to charge homicide and frustrated homicide based on the appellant's willingness to plead guilty to lesser offenses, and the appellant pleaded guilty to this entirely new information, no evidence had yet been presented in connection with the charges in the amended information. Therefore, the Court held that, similar to the Intal case, the appellant was entitled to have the mitigating circumstance of plea of guilty considered in his favor for the imposition of the penalty. On the issue of whether a plea of guilty to an amended information, entered after the commencement of the trial on the original information, qualifies as a mitigating circumstance: The Supreme Court ruled in the affirmative. The Court clarified that while the trial had begun on the original charges, the amended information constituted new charges. Since the plea of guilty was entered upon arraignment for these new charges, and no evidence had been presented by the prosecution specifically for these amended charges prior to the plea, the condition for the mitigating circumstance of plea of guilty was met. The Court distinguished this from a situation where a plea is entered after evidence has already been presented on the very charges to which the plea is made. The Court's reasoning in People vs. Intal was applied, emphasizing that the plea was made to an entirely new set of charges for which no evidence had yet been adduced.
Main Doctrine
A plea of guilty to an amended information, entered after the prosecution has commenced the presentation of evidence on the original information, should be considered as a mitigating circumstance if no evidence has yet been presented in connection with the charges in the amended information.