Facts:

• The case involves Melchor Intal y David as the defendant and the People of the Philippines as the plaintiff and appellee.
• The trial was for double murder, and the defendant expressed a willingness to plead guilty to double homicide after the prosecution rested its case and the defense presented three witnesses.
• This occurred on April 29, 1957, in the Philippines.
• The prosecution, represented by Assistant Fiscal Carlos Gulman Cruz and private prosecutor Atty. Alfonso Felix, Jr., did not object to the plea change.
• The court allowed the defendant to withdraw his not guilty plea and substitute it with a guilty plea to double homicide.
• The prosecution moved to amend the information to reflect this change, which the court granted.
• During the arraignment on the amended information, the defendant pleaded guilty and sought to prove the mitigating circumstance of physical infirmity, which the prosecution acknowledged.
• The trial court sentenced the defendant to an indeterminate penalty ranging from 10 years and 1 day of prision mayor as the minimum to 17 years, 4 months, and 1 day of reclusion temporal as the maximum, along with indemnity and costs.
• The defendant appealed, contesting only the penalty imposed.

Issue:

• (Unlock)

Ruling:

• The Supreme Court ruled that the defendant's plea of guilty to the amended charge should be considered a mitigating circumstance.
• The penalty imposed by the trial court was modified.
• The defendant was sentenced to an indeterminate penalty of not less than 4 years, 9 months, and 11 d...(Unlock)

Ratio:

• The Court's reasoning was based on the precedent set in People vs. Calma, recognizing a guilty plea to a lesser offense as a mitigating circumstance.
• The Court distinguished this case from People vs. Noble, where the accused only offered to plead guilty without actually doing so.
• The defendant formally entered a guilty plea to double homicide after the information was amended, warranting consideration as an extenuating circumstance.
...continue reading