People of the Philippines vs. Calixto Quijano y Pascual

A voluntary confession of guilt is a mitigating circumstance only if made prior to the presentation of evidence for the prosecution. A plea of guilty entered after the prosecution has begun presenting its evidence cannot be appreciated as a mitigating circumstance, as the accused has had the opportunity to speculate on the proofs against him before admitting guilt.

The appellant was charged before the Court of First Instance of Manila with the crime of robbery committed through violence against persons, specifically by striking the victim with fist blows and taking a bag containing two mangoes. The information alleged that the appellant was a recidivist, having been previously convicted twice of theft. The applicable law was Article 294, paragraph 5 of the Revised Penal Code, which penalizes robbery with violence against persons, and Article 13, paragraph 7 of the same Code, which defines the mitigating circumstance of voluntary confession of guilt.

The appellant, Calixto Quijano y Pascual, was charged in the Court of First Instance of Manila with robbery committed through violence against persons. The information alleged that on or about May 17, 1941, in the City of Manila, the appellant, conspiring and confederating with two other persons whose identities were unknown, gave fist blows on the face of Efrain Fajardo, a paymaster and foreman of the Eastern Syndicate Investment Co., causing him physical injuries of minor importance. The appellant then snatched, took, and carried away a bag containing two native mangoes, which Fajardo was using for carrying the pay of the laborers working for the company. The damage was alleged to be P1.00 for the value of the bag and P0.05 for the value of the two mangoes. The information further alleged that the appellant was a recidivist, having been previously convicted twice of theft on September 13, 1940, by final judgments of competent courts.

Upon arraignment on July 24, 1941, the appellant pleaded not guilty, and trial commenced on September 9, 1941. After the first witness for the prosecution had testified, the trial was continued to September 15, 1941. Upon the resumption of the trial on that date, the appellant, through his attorney, asked leave of court to change his plea of not guilty to that of guilty. The court granted the petition and found him guilty of the crime charged, appreciating the mitigating circumstance of voluntary confession of guilt, which was offset by the aggravating circumstance of recidivism. The court sentenced him to an indeterminate penalty ranging from three months of arresto mayor to three years, eight months, and one day of prision correccional, with the accessory penalties of the law, to indemnify the Eastern Syndicate & Investment Company in the amount of P1 and Efrain Fajardo in the sum of P0.05, with subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency, and to pay the costs. The appellant appealed from that sentence.

• Affirmance Recommended: Counsel de oficio for the appellant recommended the affirmance of the sentence appealed from, apparently finding no reversible error in the trial court's judgment.

• Mitigating Circumstance Improperly Appreciated: The Solicitor-General contended that the appreciation by the trial court of the plea of guilty as a mitigating circumstance was not authorized by law, and recommended that the penalty be raised accordingly.

• Mitigating Circumstance of Voluntary Confession of Guilt: Whether the trial court erred in appreciating the appellant's plea of guilty as a mitigating circumstance when the plea was made after the prosecution had already presented part of its evidence.
• Insignificance of the Value of the Property Stolen: Whether the trial court could properly grant the mitigating circumstance based on the insignificant value of the property stolen, notwithstanding the legal requirement that the confession be made prior to the presentation of evidence for the prosecution.

• Mitigating Circumstance of Voluntary Confession of Guilt: No. The plea of guilty was not a valid mitigating circumstance because it was made after part of the evidence for the prosecution had been presented, contrary to the requirement of Article 13, paragraph 7 of the Revised Penal Code.
• Insignificance of the Value of the Property Stolen: No. The relative insignificance of the booty does not mitigate the criminality of the robber; the trial court's justification for granting mitigation on this ground was not sanctioned.

• Mitigating Circumstance of Voluntary Confession of Guilt: Under paragraph 7 of Article 13 of the Revised Penal Code, a voluntary confession of guilt may be considered a mitigating circumstance only if made prior to the presentation of the evidence for the prosecution. The Court cited its prior rulings in People vs. Diaz and Fernandez, People vs. Borenaga, People vs. Sotelo y Matti, and People vs. Fortuno, all holding that a voluntary confession of guilt made after part of the evidence for the prosecution has been presented cannot be appreciated as a mitigating circumstance. The Court reasoned that there should be no mitigation for an admission of guilt which the accused has withheld until after he has speculated on the proofs against him and has satisfied himself that he has no probable escape. The trial court itself recognized that under the law the accused was no longer entitled to this mitigating circumstance, but nevertheless gave the accused the benefit thereof.

• Insignificance of the Value of the Property Stolen: The Court rejected the trial court's justification that the insignificant value of the property stolen, P1.10 only, warranted granting the mitigating circumstance. The Court held that the relative insignificance of the booty does not mitigate the criminality of the robber; on the contrary, it only serves to bring out his perversity in bolder relief, for he who commits violence against persons for a trifle must be a real criminal. The crime committed by the appellant is punished by Article 294, paragraph 5 of the Revised Penal Code with prision correccional to prision mayor in its medium period. With the aggravating circumstance of recidivism not compensated by any mitigating circumstance, the penalty should be applied in the maximum degree, instead of the medium as the trial court did.

• Voluntary Confession of Guilt as a Mitigating Circumstance — Under Article 13, paragraph 7 of the Revised Penal Code, a voluntary confession of guilt is a mitigating circumstance only if made prior to the presentation of evidence for the prosecution. A plea of guilty entered after the prosecution has begun presenting its evidence cannot be appreciated as a mitigating circumstance, because the accused has had the opportunity to speculate on the proofs against him and to assess his chances of escape before admitting guilt.

• Insignificance of the Value of Stolen Property — The relative insignificance of the booty does not mitigate the criminality of a robber. On the contrary, committing violence against persons for a trifle demonstrates greater perversity and does not warrant a reduction of the penalty.

• "Under paragraph 7 of article 13 of the Revised Penal Code, in order that a voluntary confession of guilt may be considered a mitigating circumstance, it must be made prior to the presentation of the evidence for the prosecution." — This passage states the controlling statutory rule that governs the disposition of the case and defines the temporal requirement for the mitigating circumstance.

• "There should be no mitigation on account of an admission of guilt which the accused has withheld until after he has speculated on the proofs against him and has satisfied himself that he has no probable escape." — This passage articulates the policy rationale behind the rule, explaining why a belated plea of guilty should not be rewarded with mitigation.

• "The relative insignificance of the booty does not mitigate the criminality of the robber. On the contrary, it only serves to bring out his perversity in bolder relief; for he who commits violence against persons for a trifle must be a real criminal." — This passage rejects the trial court's justification for granting mitigation based on the small value of the stolen property and establishes that the value of the booty is irrelevant to the appreciation of mitigating circumstances.

• People vs. Diaz and Fernandez, G.R. No. 45281 — Cited as controlling precedent for the proposition that a voluntary confession of guilt made after part of the evidence for the prosecution has been presented cannot be appreciated as a mitigating circumstance.
• People vs. Borenaga, G.R. No. 45211 — Cited as controlling precedent on the same rule regarding the timing of the confession of guilt.
• People vs. Sotelo y Matti, G.R. No. 44655 — Cited as controlling precedent on the same rule regarding the timing of the confession of guilt.
• People vs. Fortuno, 1 Off. Gaz. No. 9, Sept. 1942 — Cited as controlling precedent on the same rule regarding the timing of the confession of guilt.

• Article 13, paragraph 7, Revised Penal Code — Defines voluntary confession of guilt as a mitigating circumstance, but only when made prior to the presentation of evidence for the prosecution. The Court applied this provision to hold that the appellant's plea of guilty, made after the first prosecution witness had testified, could not be appreciated as a mitigating circumstance.
• Article 294, paragraph 5, Revised Penal Code — Penalizes robbery with violence against persons with prision correccional to prision mayor in its medium period. The Court applied this provision to determine the proper penalty range, which was then applied in the maximum degree due to the aggravating circumstance of recidivism not being compensated by any mitigating circumstance.

Yulo, C.J., Moran, Paras, and Bocobo, JJ., concurred.