PEOPLE VS CALPITO

G.R. No. 123298   November 27, 2003

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs. FRANCISCO L. CALPITO

Facts:

          On November 21, 1990, Israel Montilla was sleeping in the sala of the victim’s residence when he was awakened by the victim’s shout for help. He then rushed to the victim’s bedroom which was just 2 ½ meters away from the sofa on which he slept. By the doorway, he met appellant who was holding a fan knife in his right hand and the victim’s shoulder bag in his left. He grappled with appellant, who suddenly stabbed him on his left upper arm. While Montilla searched for something with which he could defend himself, appellant rushed out of the house through the kitchen door, the lock of which the latter had destroyed. Montilla looked inside the bedroom and saw his grandmother on the bed lying in a pool of blood, with stab wounds all over her body.

          The RTC finds the charge of Robbery with Homicide unsubstantiated by evidence, convicted appellant of the crime of Murder.

          Appellant, thereafter, filed a Motion for Reconsideration arguing that the trial court erred in convicting him of Murder instead of Homicide, and in failing to apply the mitigating circumstance of minority.

Issue:

          Whether or not the court erred in not appreciating the privileged mitigating circumstances of minority interposed by the defense.

Ruling:

          This Court, however, disagrees with the trial court in its conclusion on the mitigating circumstance of minority. In its order, the court a quo found appellant’s birth certificate doubtful because there appeared a slight discrepancy between the name stated thereon and the name being used by appellant. in assessing the attendance of the mitigating circumstance of minority, all doubts should be resolved in favor of the accused, it being more beneficial to the latter. In fact, in several cases, this Court has appreciated this circumstance on the basis of a lone declaration of the accused regarding his age.

          This Court emphasizes that while the submitted birth certificate is not entirely satisfactory, a careful review of the records reveals other evidence of appellant’s minority.

          Furthermore, this Court agrees with appellant’s claim that he should be credited with the mitigating circumstance of voluntary plea of guilty to the offense charged. The requisites of this circumstance are: (1) that the offender spontaneously confessed his guilt; (2) that the confession of guilt was made in open court, that is, before the competent court that is to try the case; and (3) that the confession of guilt was made prior to the presentation of evidence for the prosecution. In this case, upon re-arraignment, appellant, in the presence of his counsel, and in open court, voluntarily pleaded guilty to the crime charged before the prosecution presented its evidence.