People of the Philippines vs. Dy Pol

A spontaneous plea of guilty entered before the prosecution presents its evidence is a mitigating circumstance under Article 13(7) of the Revised Penal Code, but lack of irreparable material damage to the offended party is neither expressly recognized nor analogous to any mitigating circumstance under Article 13(10).

Dy Pol was the manager of the commercial establishment known as “Mambucal,” which belonged to Chua We. The charge concerned a notarized deed of sale over that establishment.

On or about June 23, 1936, in the municipality of Iloilo, Province of Iloilo, Dy Pol was charged in the Court of First Instance of Iloilo with falsification of a public document. According to the information, Dy Pol, then manager of the commercial establishment known as “Mambucal” belonging to Chua We, voluntarily and unlawfully appeared before notary public Pedro Davila. Pretending to be Chua We, he executed and ratified a deed selling the commercial establishment to himself, signing it as Chua We.

The information alleged that Dy Pol thereby made false manifestations in the statement of facts and made it appear that Chua We had sold him the establishment, when in fact Chua We never appeared before the notary public, executed the document, or sold the commercial establishment “Mambucal.” As a consequence, Dy Pol allegedly succeeded in appropriating articles and merchandise from “Mambucal” in the amount of P488,62, to the damage and prejudice of Chua We.

Upon arraignment, Dy Pol pleaded guilty. The Court of First Instance of Iloilo forthwith sentenced him to an indeterminate penalty of from four months and one day of arresto mayor to two years, four months and one day of prision correccional, to indemnify the offended party in the sum of P438, with subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency, and to pay the costs. Dy Pol appealed, and in the Supreme Court his attorney insisted solely upon reduction of the penalty imposed, invoking the mitigating circumstances of plea of guilty and lack of irreparable material damage to the offended party.

• Plea of Guilty: Appellant Dy Pol maintained that his spontaneous plea of guilty, entered prior to the presentation of the prosecution’s evidence, was a mitigating circumstance warranting reduction of the penalty imposed.
• Lack of Irreparable Material Damage: Appellant Dy Pol argued that the crime committed caused no irreparable material damage to the offended party, which should also be considered in reducing the penalty.

• Plea of Guilty: Whether the accused’s spontaneous plea of guilty before the prosecution presented its evidence constitutes a mitigating circumstance under Article 13(7) of the Revised Penal Code.
• Lack of Irreparable Material Damage: Whether the absence of irreparable material damage to the offended party is a mitigating circumstance under the Revised Penal Code or analogous to those recognized under Article 13(10).
• Proper Penalty: Whether the penalty imposed for falsification of a public document under Article 172 should be modified in accordance with the Indeterminate Sentence Law and the prescribed fine.

• Plea of Guilty: Yes. A spontaneous plea of guilty entered before the presentation of the prosecution’s evidence is a mitigating circumstance under Article 13(7) of the Revised Penal Code and was considered in imposing the indeterminate penalty in its minimum periods.
• Lack of Irreparable Material Damage: No. It is not recognized by the Revised Penal Code and is not analogous to any expressly recognized mitigating circumstance under Article 13(10), so it cannot be considered.
• Proper Penalty: Modified. Article 172 punishes the crime with prision correccional in its medium and maximum periods and a fine of not more than P5,000; under the Indeterminate Sentence Law, the sentence is from four months and one day of arresto mayor to two years, four months and one day of prision correccional, plus a P200 fine, indemnity of P438.52, subsidiary imprisonment, and costs.

• Plea of Guilty: The plea of guilty was spontaneously entered by the accused prior to the presentation of the evidence for the prosecution. Article 13(7) of the Revised Penal Code treats such a plea as a mitigating circumstance. The trial court took it into consideration in imposing the indeterminate penalty prescribed in its minimum periods, and the Supreme Court upheld that treatment.
• Lack of Irreparable Material Damage: The Revised Penal Code does not recognize lack of irreparable material damage to the offended party as a mitigating circumstance. Article 13(10) permits only circumstances of similar nature and analogous to those expressly recognized. Because the invoked circumstance is neither recognized nor analogous, it cannot correctly be taken into consideration.
• Proper Penalty: The crime confessed by the accused is punished by Article 172 of the Revised Penal Code with prision correccional in its medium and maximum periods and a fine of not more than P5,000. Under the Indeterminate Sentence Law, Act No. 4103, as amended by Act No. 4225, the indeterminate sentence that should be imposed is from four months and one day of arresto mayor to two years, four months and one day of prision correccional, a fine of P200, the indemnity, with the corresponding subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency of both sums, and costs. The appealed judgment was accordingly modified to include the fine and the correct indemnity of P438.52.

• Plea of Guilty as Mitigating Circumstance — Under Article 13(7) of the Revised Penal Code, a spontaneous plea of guilty entered by the accused before the prosecution presents its evidence is a mitigating circumstance. The Court applied this to Dy Pol, whose plea was made upon arraignment and before the presentation of evidence, and upheld its consideration in imposing the indeterminate penalty in its minimum periods.
• Lack of Irreparable Material Damage Not Mitigating — The absence of irreparable material damage to the offended party is not a mitigating circumstance under the Revised Penal Code. It is also not analogous to any expressly recognized mitigating circumstance under Article 13(10), so it cannot be considered to reduce criminal liability. The Court rejected Dy Pol’s invocation of this circumstance.
• Indeterminate Sentence for Falsification of Public Document — Falsification of a public document under Article 172 of the Revised Penal Code is punished by prision correccional in its medium and maximum periods and a fine not exceeding P5,000. Under the Indeterminate Sentence Law, Act No. 4103, as amended by Act No. 4225, the indeterminate sentence is from four months and one day of arresto mayor to two years, four months and one day of prision correccional, with the prescribed fine, indemnity, subsidiary imprisonment, and costs. The Court applied this to modify the appealed judgment.

• "The plea of guilty spontaneously entered by the accused prior to the presentation of the evidence for the prosecution constitutes mitigating circumstance under article 13, subsection 7, of the Revised Penal Code, and the court took it into consideration in imposing the indeterminate penalty prescribed in its minimum periods." — This passage states the ratio decidendi on the mitigating effect of a spontaneous plea of guilty made before the prosecution presents evidence.
• "The other mitigating circumstance invoked by the appellant, which is that the crime committed by the accused has caused no irreparable material damage to the offended party is not recognized by the Revised Penal Code. Neither is it among those which may be considered as similar nature and analogous to those expressly recognized, in accordance with article 13, subsection 10, and therefore it cannot correctly be taken into consideration." — This passage defines the Court’s rejection of lack of irreparable material damage as a mitigating circumstance and its treatment under Article 13(10).
• "The crime confessed by the accused is punished by article 172 of the Revised Penal Code with prision correccional in its medium and maximum periods and a fine of not more than P5,000." — This passage identifies the controlling penalty provision for the falsification confessed by the accused.
• "Under Indeterminate Sentence Law, Act No. 4103, as amended by Act No. 4225 the indeterminate sentence that should be imposed is from four months and one day of arresto mayor to two years, four months and one day of prision correccional, a fine of P200, the indemnity, with the corresponding subsidiary imprisonment in case insolvency of both sums with costs." — This passage applies the Indeterminate Sentence Law to fix the modified penalty, fine, indemnity, subsidiary imprisonment, and costs.

• Article 13, subsection 7, Revised Penal Code — Provides that a spontaneous plea of guilty before the presentation of evidence for the prosecution is a mitigating circumstance. The Court applied it to Dy Pol’s plea.
• Article 13, subsection 10, Revised Penal Code — Allows mitigating circumstances of similar nature and analogous to those expressly recognized. The Court held that lack of irreparable material damage is not analogous and cannot be considered.
• Article 172, Revised Penal Code — Punishes falsification of a public document by prision correccional in its medium and maximum periods and a fine of not more than P5,000. The Court used it to determine the penalty for the confessed crime.
• Indeterminate Sentence Law, Act No. 4103, as amended by Act No. 4225 — Governs the imposition of the indeterminate sentence. The Court applied it to set the minimum and maximum terms for Dy Pol’s penalty.

Avanceña, C.J.; Villa-Real, J.; Abad Santos, J.; Diaz, J.; Laurel, J.; Concepcion, J.