THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF AND APPELLEE, VS. LORETO AECONADO, ET AL., DEFENDANTS, LORETO ARCONADO, DEFENDANT AND APPELLANT.

This is an appeal from an order of the Court of First Instance of
Ilocos Norte, Hon. Delfin B. Flores presiding, denying a petition of
the accused-appellant Loreto Arconado for the reopening of the case, to
give said appellant opportunity to prove the mitigating circumstance of
incomplete self-defense.

The facts leading to the appeal are correctly presented in the brief of the government as follows:

“In the afternoon of November 11, 1958, at about
five o’clock, the defendant-appellant, Loreto Arconado, stabbed and
killed one, Leoncio Eecacho in Gabu Sur, Laoag, Ilocos Norte. Charged
with the crime of homicide, the said Arconado, at first, pleaded not
guilty but decided to change it to that of guilty when the date of his
trial arrived with the request, however, that he be allowed to present
evidence showing the presence of several mitigating circumstances which
attended the killing (tsn, pp. 2-5, Aug. 17, 1959). This request was
granted by the trial court and appellant was able to prove to the
satisfaction of the Court the mitigating circumstances of minority,
voluntary surrender in addition to his plea of guilty (tsn. pp. 5,
8-10, 33-34, Aug. 17, 1959). But when appellant further requested to
prove the mitigating circumstance of sufficient provocation on the part
of the offended party immediately preceding the act, the prosecution
objected, and the former had to withdraw his request (tsn, pp. 31-33,
Aug. 17, 1959.) The lower court then sentenced appellant to an
indeterminate sentence of not less than FOUR (4) MONTHS and ONE (1) day
of arresto mayor nor more than four (4) years and TWO (2) MONTHS of prison correccional,
to indemnify the heirs of the deceased in the amount of P6,000.00 with
subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency not to exceed one third
(1/3) of the principal penalty and to pay the costs (p. 46, Rec.).
Thereafter, appellant filed an Urgent Motion For Reconsideration and
later on, a Motion For Reconsideration And For Re-opening both praying
that the trial court allow him to prove either the mitigating
circumstance of incomplete self-defense or sufficient provocation (pp.
52-57, Rec.). The court denied both motions on the ground that it would
be tantamount to making appellant’s plea of guilt conditional to allow
him to prove the mitigating circumstances aforesaid (pp. 58-59, Rec).
Hence, the present appeal.” (pp. 1-3, Brief for the plaintiff-appellee).

In order to understand the merits of the appeal, the facts and
circumstances leading to the prosecution of the accused-appellant
Loreto Arconado may be briefly stated as follows: On the 11th day of
November 1958, between five o’clock and six o’clock in the afternoon,
eight individuals were talking together on a place west of the house of
one Francisco Ragasa, barrio No. 35, Gabu Sur, Laoag, Ilocos Norte.
While they were together and talking to each other, Leoncio Racacho
came to the group saying in Ilocano words meaning “Vulva of your
mother, all of you.” (Vulva de su madre, in Spanish). He continued
repeating these indecent words at the group and one of them, Manuel
Ramos, thought that Racacho was just joking, but Racacho went further
than that; he approached one by the name of Aning who tried to evade
him. Racacho then hit Manuel Ramos with his fist and then assaulted
still another, Juan Ragat. When Pedro Rabur noticed that Racacho was
assaulting Juan Ragat he pulled Racacho away, but as Rabur went back to
get his fighting cock Racacho approached Luis Arconado, father of the
accused-appellant, throwing sand at Luis.

It so happened that the accused-appellant Loreto Arconado had come
to call for his father Luis Arconado; but as soon as he reached his
father’s place he was embraced by Racacho. The appellant objected
saying that he was not to blame for anything and a fight ensued between
Racacho and appellant, as a result of which Rachacho later was stabbed
by the appellant. The above incidents are contained in the affidavits
attached to the complaint. The persons who subscribed to the affidavit
were among those actually present and witnessed the coming of Racacho
to the group and his assault on many of them.

As indicated in the statement of the Solicitor General above-quoted,
when appellant asked that he be allowed to plead guilty, his counsel
expressed his intention of proving certain mitigating circumstance; but
as soon as he had finished proving the mitigating circumstances of
minority and voluntary surrender, and as he started proving the
mitigating circumstance of unlawful aggression or incomplete
self-defense, the judge ordered him to stop. Out of respect for the
judge he desisted from continuing and waited until the judge rendered
its judgment.

On the day following the decision attorney for the accused-appellant
filed his motion praying the court that his order prohibiting the
further presentation of evidence of mitigating circumstances be
reconsidered and that accused-appellant be given the opportunity to
establish the additional mitigating circumstance either of incomplete
self-defense or sufficient provocation or threat on the part of the
offended party immediately preceding the act. The motion was opposed by
the fiscal and the court thereupon issued the order denying the
petition for opportunity of accused-appellant to introduce the evidence
of the additional mitigating circumstance of incomplete self-defense.
The court reasoned out that the plea of guilty entered by the
accused-appellant relieved the prosecution from proving the allegations
of the information; that if the accused-appellant were allowed to prove
self-defense or sufficient provocation or threat on the part of the
deceased such a case would no longer be consistent with the plea of
guilty entered by the accused-appellant.

It is true that the discretion is lodged with the trial court to
permit or not submission of evidence of mitigating circumstances, after
a plea of guilty has been entered. But such discretion must be
exercised in accordance with the facts and circumstances of the case
and said discretion should not be used to prevent the disclosure of
circumstances that would mitigate in any manner the responsibility of
the accused who has pleaded guilty. In the case at bar the records show
that some of the mitigating circumstances composing that of incomplete
self-defense, attended the commission of the crime and the aims of
justice would not be subserved by the denial of the motion to submit
evidence of the said, mitigating circumstances. The rules of procedure
were not designed to curtail the disclosure of the real facts,
especially of mitigating circumstances, that the criminal law may be
applied with justice and fairness both to the prosecution and to the
accused. Were we to make the discretion of the judge in matters like
the case at bar absolute, no accused would be induced to enter a plea
of guilty and thereby abbreviate in a way the proceedings and
especially the trial of the case. When, as in the case at bar, the
facts and circumstances, as appearing in the record itself, justify the
claim of the mitigating circumstance of incomplete self-defense, we
believe it was error for the trial court to deny the privilege to
submit evidence thereof.

Wherefore, the order appealed from is hereby set aside and the case
is remanded to the court below for the admission of the preferred
evidence of the mitigating circumstance of incomplete self-defense, in
accordance with this opinion. Without costs. So ordered.

Bengzon, C. J., Padilla, Bautista Angelo, Concepcion, Reyes, J. B. L., Barrera, Paredes, Dizon, and De Leon, JJ., concur.