G.R. No. 48630 ; June 4, 1943
THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. CALIXTO QUIJANO Y PASCUAL, defendant-appellant.

FACTS

The appellant, Calixto Quijano y Pascual, was charged in the Court of First Instance of Manila with the crime of robbery committed on or about May 17, 1941. The information alleged that he, conspiring with two others, used violence (fist blows causing minor injuries) against Efrain Fajardo, a paymaster, to snatch and steal a bag containing two native mangoes. The property damage was stated as P1.00 to the Eastern Syndicate Investment Co. for the bag and P0.05 to Fajardo for the mangoes. The information further alleged that the accused was a recidivist, having been previously convicted twice of theft. Initially pleading not guilty, the appellant stood trial. After the first prosecution witness testified, the trial was continued. Upon resumption, the appellant, through counsel, asked to change his plea to guilty. The court granted this, found him guilty, and considered his plea as the mitigating circumstance of voluntary confession of guilt, offset by the aggravating circumstance of recidivism. He was sentenced to an indeterminate penalty. The appellant appealed. The Solicitor-General contested the trial court’s appreciation of the plea as a mitigating circumstance.

ISSUE

Whether the trial court correctly appreciated the appellant’s change of plea to guilty, made after the prosecution had already presented part of its evidence, as a mitigating circumstance of voluntary confession of guilt under the Revised Penal Code.

RULING

No. The Supreme Court ruled that the trial court erred in appreciating the plea as a mitigating circumstance. Under Article 13, paragraph 7 of the Revised Penal Code, a voluntary confession of guilt to be mitigating must be made prior to the presentation of evidence for the prosecution. The Court cited previous jurisprudence holding that a confession made after part of the prosecution’s evidence has been presented cannot be considered mitigating, as the accused should not benefit from withholding an admission of guilt after speculating on the strength of the evidence against him. The Court rejected the trial court’s alternative justification based on the “insignificant value” of the stolen property (P1.10), stating that the relative triviality of the booty does not mitigate criminality and may instead highlight the perpetrator’s perversity. The crime, robbery under Article 294(5) of the Revised Penal Code, is punishable by prision correccional to prision mayor in its medium period. With the aggravating circumstance of recidivism and no compensating mitigating circumstance, the penalty should be applied in its maximum degree. Consequently, the Supreme Court modified the penalty to an indeterminate sentence of not less than four months and one day of arresto mayor and not more than six years, ten months, and one day of prision mayor. The judgment was affirmed in all other respects.