THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF AND APPELLEE, VS. DAYATON MANIBPEL, DEFENDANT AND APPELLANT.

Appeal taken by Dayaton Manibpel from the decision of the Court of First
Instance of Cotabato in Criminal Case No. 2293 finding him guilty of bigamy and
sentencing him to an indeterminate penalty of six (6) months of arresto mayor,
as minimum, to two (2) years, four (4) months and one (1) day of prision
correccional, as maximum, and to pay the costs. The court considered in his
favor the mitigating circumstance of his being a Muslim inhabitant of a Moro
province.

Appellant was charged with bigamy as follows:

“That in or about December, 1954, in the barrio of Lamperal, Municipality of
Bañga, province of Cotabato, Philippines and within the jurisdiction of this
Honorable Court, the said accused Dayaton Manibpel, being previously united in
lawful marriage with Conding Makambang, and without the said marriage having
been legally dissolved, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously
contract a subsequent or second marriage with Mora Babaya
Badio.”

On arraignment, he pleaded not guilty. During the trial and while the
prosecution’s third witness, Adel Pamanay, was being cross-examined, appellant
agreed that should said witness swear by the Koran to the truth of his
testimony, he would withdraw his plea of not guilty and substitute it with one
of guilty. As after concluding his testimony Pamanay swore by the Koran,
appellant was arraigned anew and—as he had promised—pleaded guilty. The court
forthwith rendered—so it thought—a judgment sentencing appellant to suffer an
indeterminate penalty of not less than six (6) months of arresto mayor nor more
than two (2) years, four (4) months and one (1) year of prision
correccional, and to pay the costs.

Appellant appealed, but upon motion of the Solicitor General, we remanded the
case to the trial court because the decision was not signed. On September 29,
1958, the lower court rendered the appealed judgment—a reiteration of the
previous unsigned decision. Hence the present appeal.,

Appellant contends in the first assignment of error that the case should be
remanded below for further proceedings on the ground that “the trial court erred
in sanctioning the swearing by the Koran as the basis of the withdrawal by the
appellant of the original plea of “not guilty” and its substitution with a plea
of guilty.”

In his second assignment of error he contends that, if convicted, the penalty
to be imposed upon him should be at least two degrees lower than prision
mayor because he is entitled to the consideration in his favor of the
following mitigating circumstances, namely: the fact that he is a Muslim
residing in Mindanao; lack of instruction; mistake of fact, and voluntary plea
of guilty.

We find no merit in appellant’s contentions.

It appearing from the record that upon re-arraignment appellant voluntarily
withdrew his plea of not guilty and substituted it with one of guilty, the fact
that he did so because prosecution witness Pamanay, after the conclusion of his
testimony given under the usual oath, swore by the Koran that his aforesaid
testimony was true, becomes of no consequence. As a matter of fact, even if
Pamanay took no such oath by the Koran, appellant’s withdrawal of his original
plea and his subsequent plea of guilty would have been perfectly regular. On the
other hand, it is obvious that the fact that Pamanay did not hesitate to swear
by the Koran that his whole testimony—given under oath—was true is further
guarantee of his credibility.

In connection with the second assignment of error, the record shows that the
fact that appellant is a Muslim residing in Mindanao was already taken into
consideration by the lower court. His alleged lack of instruction, on the other
hand, cannot be considered in his favor because of lack of evidence to prove it,
while the alleged “mistake of fact” committed by him, even if true, does not
constitute a mitigating circumstance. Lastly, his plea of guilty cannot be
considered in his favor because it was entered only after three prosecution
witnesses had completed their testimony.

Wherefore, the appealed decision being in accordance with law, the same is
affirmed, with costs.

Padilla, Bautista Angelo, Labrador, Reyes, J. B. L., Barrera, Paredes,
Regala, and Makalintal, JJ., concur.