Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1911 > March 1911 Decisions > G.R. No. L-6102 March 11, 1911 - UNITED STATES v. RUFINO DINEROS

018 Phil 566:




PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

EN BANC

[G.R. No. L-6102. March 11, 1911.]

THE UNITED STATES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. RUFINO DINEROS, Defendant-Appellant.

Cayetano Hipolito for Appellant.

Acting Attorney-General Harvey for Appellee.

SYLLABUS


1. DATE OF CONVICTION ON FACE OF WRITTEN JUDGMENT; CONFLICTING DATE ON MINUTES KEPT BY CLERK; NONPREJUDICIAL ERROR. — The written judgment of conviction, filed by the trial judge, formally setting forth the fact that the accused, upon arraignment, pleaded guilty, bears the date "hoy, 3 de Marzo de 1910" (to-day, March 3, 1910). The minutes of the proceedings, as kept by the clerk of the court, set forth these proceedings as having taken place at the "sesion del dia 13 de Marzo de 1910, a. m." (morning session of March 13, 1910): Held, That the discrepancy in the record is immaterial, no substantial right of the appellant having been prejudiced thereby; and that the correctness of the date which appears on the face of the judgment is not successfully impeached by a mere reference to the conflicting date which appears on the copy of the minutes kept by the clerk.

2. CRIMINAL PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE; PLEA OF GUILTY, ARE RECORDED BY THE JUDGE AND BY THE CLERK OF COURT. — There is no substantial difference between the relation of fact by the trial judge in his opinion, that the accused "declared himself guilty" of the crime with which he was charged, and the relation of fact in the minutes, kept by the clerk, that the accused "said that he considered himself guilty."cralaw virtua1aw library

3. ID.; ESSENCE OF THE PLEA OF GUILTY. — The essence of the plea of "guilty" in a criminal trial is that the accused, on arraignment, admits his guilt freely, voluntarily, and with a full knowledge of the consequences and the meaning of his act.


D E C I S I O N


CARSON, J.:


The information filed in this case is as follows:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"The undersigned charges Rufino Dineros with a violation of the Election Law, committed as follows:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"In the municipality of Sorsogon, Province of Sorsogon, P.I., on or about the 2d of October of the present year, the said accused voluntarily, intentionally and maliciously, knowingly disregarding the truth with the intention of registering himself as an elector in precinct No. 2 of the aforesaid municipality, did, in a written declaration, take oath and declared before the election inspectors of the said precinct, with regard to important facts, that he was not delinquent in the payment of any public tax, when in reality he was; with violation of the Election Law.

United with the record we find the following duly certified extract from the daily minute book kept by the clerk of the court wherein this case originated, under the supervision of the presiding judge:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"The United States v. Rufino Dineros. Criminal Case No. 632. Violation of the Election Law.

"I certify that in the day book of the sessions of this court are to be found the entries which, copied literally, read as follows:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"‘Morning session of March 13th, 1910.

"‘The United States v. Rufino Dineros. Criminal Case No. 632. Violation of the Election Law.

"‘In the presence of the fiscal and the accused, the latter being attended by his counsel, Attorney Obles, the complaint was read and translated to the said accused who said thereafter that he deemed himself to be guilty. Judgment was rendered. (May be found in the record of the case.)

"‘Afternoon session of March 14th, 1910.

"The United States v. Rufino Dineros. Criminal Case No. 632. Violation of the Election Law.

"‘An order was issued admitting the appeal.

"‘In witness thereof I sign these presents, in the Court of First Instance of the Province of Sorsogon, April 29, 1910.

" ’LEON GALAROSA,

"‘Deputy Clerk of the Court.’"

The judgment entered by the trial court is as follows:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, PHILIPPINE ISLANDS.

"Court of First Instance of the Province of Sorsogon, Fifteenth Judicial District. The United States v. Rufino Dineros. Criminal Case No. 632. Violation of the Election Law.

"(ORIGINAL CASE.)

"Patricio Bailon, provincial fiscal, for the Government.

"Federico Obles, attorney for the defendant.

"JUDGMENT.

"This case having been called for hearing, the accused, after the complaint had been duly read and translated to him, freely and voluntarily pleaded guilty to the crime charged against him therein.

"Therefore, in view of the confession of guilt made in open court by the accused, judgment was rendered by sentencing him to pay a fine of two hundred pesos and the costs, with corresponding subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency of the said fine and costs.

"So ordered, this 3d of March, 1910.

"JOSE C. ABREU,

"Judge of the Fifteenth District."

After the filing of this judgment no further proceedings were had in the court below, save only the formal entry of an appeal by the defendant, its allowance by the trial court and the approval of the bail bond.

The following certificate filed with the record brought here on appeal, explains itself:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"I, Leon Galarosa, deputy clerk of the Court of First Instance of the Province of Sorsogon, P.I.,

"Certify: That from this place a document was removed which, copied literally, reads as follows:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"United States of America. — Philippine Islands. — In the Court of First Instance of Sorsogon. — The United States v. Rufino Dineros. — For violation of the Election Law. — Whereas the accused, Rufino Dineros, was sentenced, on March 3d, 1910, in the Court of First Instance of Sorsogon, to pay a fine of two hundred pesos and the costs, for a violation of the Election Law; and whereas an appeal had been entered and his release had been granted under condition of a five hundred peso bail, therefore we, Victorino Dineros and Vito Labsa, hereby bind ourselves, jointly and severally, as guarantors that he will at all times be willing to comply with the orders and determinations of the court and that, in case of conviction, he will appear to hear the judgment and will comply therewith; and in case of a failure to comply with any of these obligations, we likewise bring ourselves to pay to the United States the sum of five hundred pesos. — We also declare that we are solvent for the amount of five hundred pesos, with exclusion of court other obligations. — Sorsogon, March 15, 1910. — Victorino Dineros. — Surety. — Vito Labsa. — Surety. — Signed and sworn to before me, this 15th day of March, 1910. — Victorino Dineros exhibited to me his personal cedula, No. 440241, issued in Sorsogon, on January 18, 1910. — Vito Labsa exhibited to me his personal cedula, No. 440234, issued in Sorsogon, on January 18, 1910. — Jose de Vera. — Clerk of the Court. — There is an impression stamp which reads thus: Court of 1st Instance Sorsogon. — Approved this 15th day of March, 1910. — (Sgd.) Jose C. Abreu. — Judge.’

"The preceding copy agrees with its original which, for such purpose as are required, is kept in the office of the clerk of the court, which is under my charge.

"Sorsogon, April 29, 1910.

"LEON GALAROSA,

"Deputy Clerk of the Court."

Counsel for appellant, appointed de oficio by this court, makes no attempt to show a real miscarriage of justice in this case. Indeed the facts disclosed by the record would not justify any attempt to do so. Counsel, therefore, substantially limits himself to directing the attention of the court to the fact that, while the judgment pronounced by the court below bears date of the 3d day of March, 1910, and set out as a fact that the accused pleaded guilty on his arraignment, it appears from the minutes of the proceedings in the court, as kept by the clerk, the arraignment did not take place until the 13th day of March, 1910, and that when the defendant entered his plea, he merely said that he deemed himself to be guilty (que se considero culpable).

The foregoing extracts from the record clearly set fourth the grounds on which counsel’s criticisms are based.

As to the discrepancy in the record touching the dates, we think that conceding every reasonable presumption in favor of the appellant, and granting that in dating his judgment as of the 3d day of March, 1910, the trial judge fell into a clerical error and that the judgment should have been dated as of the 13th of March, 1910, in order to conform to the real facts, nevertheless such error was at most error without prejudice. If as a result of the alleged erroneous dating of the judgment, or of its entry, the defendant were in danger of losing his right to appeal or any other substantial right, it might, indeed, be important to have the correctness of the date of the judgment inquired into and any clerical error therein corrected. But in this case there can be no danger that any substantial right of the appellant had been or can be prejudiced, granting that the judgment was incorrectly dated.

As a matter of fact, however, we do not think that the correctness of the date which appears on the face of the judgment is successfully impeached by a mere reference to the conflicting date which appears in the copy of the minutes kept by the clerk. It has in its favor all the presumptions of truth and accuracy in favor of a solemn judgment, rendered by the judge presiding in the court below. Its correctness was not questioned by the defendant at the time when it was entered, or pending the perfection of the appeal to this court. Its accuracy is in some sort corroborated by the recitals contained in the bail bond filed by the appellant himself, at the time when he perfected his appeal. And no attempt is made, by affidavits or otherwise, to show that the date which appears on the face of the judgment was not the true date on which it was rendered.

Similar reasoning disposes of counsel’s attempt, by reference to this discrepancy in dates, to impeach the truth and accuracy of the solemn recital in the judgment that the defendant, prior to the time when it was rendered, was duly arraigned and pleaded to the information. In the absence of all proof to the contrary, we must conclude, either that the trial was had and the judgment entered on the 13th day of March, 1910, in which case the date which appears on the judgment is a clerical error of the judge, but an error without prejudice, as we have already said; or that the trial was had, the plea entered, and the judgment rendered on the 3d day of March, 1910, in which case the date which appears in the extract from the minutes is a clerical error of the clerk of the court, which, of course, in no wise prejudices the appellant, and is no cause for reversal. The trial judge having solemnly declared in his judgment that the accused was duly arraigned, pleaded to the charge, and thereupon his judgment was rendered; and the clerk’s minute clearly setting out that the accused was duly arraigned, pleaded to the charge, and that thereupon judgment was entered, it is absurd to contend that we would be justified in holding both these solemn recitals of fact to be false, merely because of a discrepancy in the dates of the record of the proceedings wherein they are set out, a discrepancy which may be readily accounted for by the accidental insertion of a 3 instead of a 13, or a 13 instead of a 3, in one or the other of the instrument in which the account of the proceeding is set forth.

As to counsel’s attempt to impeach the correctness of the statement in the opinion of the trial judge wherein he sets forth that the accused declared himself guilty of the crime of which he was charged, by a reference to the statement in the minutes of the clerk which makes it appear that on arraignment, the accused said that he considered himself guilty, we think it is sufficient to say that we find no substantial difference between the statements of fact which both clearly set forth, to wit, that on arraignment the accused pleaded "guilty." The essence of the plea of "guilty" in a criminal trial, is that the accused, on arraignment, admits his guilt, freely, voluntarily, and with a full knowledge of the consequences and the meaning of his act. We do not think that the form of this admission is of vital importance, provided the admission of guilt is clear, definite, and unconditioned. Upon the solemn arraignment of the accused in the course of criminal proceedings against him, when he is asked whether he is guilty or not guilty of the offense charged in the complaint or information, the answers "Guilty;" "I am guilty;" "I consider myself guilty;" and "I declare myself guilty;" are all, under the circumstances, substantially similar and of like effect. It is the fact that the accused upon arraignment admits his guilt of the offense charged in the complaint or information which is important, not the form of the language in which he does it.

We may observe, however, in this connection, that in our opinion, the form used by the trial judge in setting out the fact that a plea of "Guilty" was entered, is distinctly preferable to the form used by the clerk in his minutes; and it would seem that under the practice and usage introduced into these Islands by the publication of General Orders, No. 58, the better form in which the plea should be cast is the literal equivalent in the language or dialect of the accused of the words "I am guilty" or "I declare myself guilty."cralaw virtua1aw library

The judgment of conviction and sentence imposed upon the appellant in the court below should be affirmed, with the costs of this instance against him.

Arellano, C.J., Mapa, Moreland and Trent, JJ., concur.




Back to Home | Back to Main




















chanrobles.com





ChanRobles On-Line Bar Review

ChanRobles Internet Bar Review : www.chanroblesbar.com

ChanRobles MCLE On-line

ChanRobles Lawnet Inc. - ChanRobles MCLE On-line : www.chanroblesmcleonline.com






March-1911 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. Nos. L-5600 and 5602 March 2, 1911 - FROEHLICH & KUTTNER v. INSULAR COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS

    018 Phil 461

  • G.R. No. L-6064 March 2, 1911 - UNITED STATES v. SY-SUIKAO

    018 Phil 482

  • G.R. No. L-6289 March 2, 1911 - JOSE M. ARROYO v. MATIAS GRANADA

    018 Phil 484

  • G.R. No. L-6300 March 2, 1901

    UNITED STATES v. JACINTA MATA, ET AL.

    018 Phil 490

  • G.R. No. L-6411 March 2, 1911 - UNITED STATES v. PEDRO REYES

    018 Phil 495

  • G.R. No. L-6423 March 2, 1911 - UNITED STATES v. SIMEON QUIAOIT

    018 Phil 499

  • G.R. No. L-6457 March 2, 1911 - UNITED STATES v. ISIDRO MADAMBA

    018 Phil 501

  • G.R. No. L-6486 March 2, 1911 - UNITED STATES v. RAFAEL B. CATOLICO

    018 Phil 504

  • G.R. No. L-6510 March 2, 191

    UNITED STATES v. POLICARPIO GAVARLAN

    018 Phil 510

  • G.R. No. L-5969 March 3, 1911 - UNITED STATES v. CEFERINO BENITEZ, ET AL.

    018 Phil 513

  • G.R. No. L-6050 March 3, 1911 - UNITED STATES v. EMILIANO RAMOS

    018 Phil 518

  • G.R. No. L-6059 March 3, 1911 - UNITED STATES v. ARCADIO BERNALES

    018 Phil 525

  • G.R. No. L-6330 March 6, 1911 - UNITED STATES v. JUAN ORACION, ET AL.

    018 Phil 530

  • G.R. No. L-6493 March 9, 1911 - UNITED STATES v. AGATON NER

    018 Phil 534

  • G.R. No. L-5446 March 10, 1911 - MANUEL CEA v. MARIANO P. VILLANUEVA

    018 Phil 538

  • G.R. No. L-6409 March 10, 1911 - UNITED STATES v. TOMAS CRUZ

    018 Phil 543

  • G.R. No. L-5554 March 11, 1919

    JUAN NOEL v. GERONIMO GODINEZ, ET AL.

    018 Phil 546

  • G.R. No. L-5619 March 11, 1919

    ENGRACIO ORENSE v. CIRILIO JAUCIAN

    018 Phil 553

  • G.R. No. L-5752 March 11, 1911 - UNITED STATES v. LORENZO SISON

    018 Phil 557

  • G.R. No. L-6102 March 11, 1911 - UNITED STATES v. RUFINO DINEROS

    018 Phil 566

  • G.R. No. L-6110 March 11, 1911 - UNITED STATES v. NARCISO DUCO

    019 Phil 1

  • G.R. No. L-6177 March 11, 1911 - UNITED STATES v. JULIANA BRIOSO

    019 Phil 3

  • G.R. No. 6189 March 11, 1911 - FAUSTINO LICHAUCO v. TEODORO LIMJUCO, ET AL.

    019 Phil 12

  • G.R. No. L-6343 March 11, 1911 - UNITED STATES v. MANUEL RODRIGUEZ

    019 Phil 23

  • G.R. No. L-6445 March 11, 1911 - UNITED STATES v. SILVINO MADAMBA

    019 Phil25cralaw:red

  • G.R. No. L-6483 March 11, 1911 - UNITED STATES v. FILEMON MENDEZ

    019 Phil 28

  • G.R. No. L-4641 March 13, 1911 - SEMINARY OF SAN CARLOS v. MUNICIPALITY OF CEBU

    019 Phil 32

  • G.R. No. L-5741 March 13, 1911 - ESTANISLAUA ARENAS v. FAUSTO O. RAYMUNDO

    019 Phil 46

  • G.R. No. L-5358 March 16, 1911 - LEE LIONG v. ISIDORO HIZOLA

    019 Phil 57

  • G.R. No. L-5729 March 16, 1911 - VICENTE PADILLA v. SIMEON LINSANGAN

    019 Phil 65

  • G.R. No. 6219 March 16, 1911 - UNITED STATES v. MARTIN DOMINGO

    019 Phil 69

  • G.R. No. L-6407 March 16, 1911 - FRANCISCA FERNANDEZ v. R.M. SHEARER

    019 Phil 75

  • G.R. No. L-6410 March 16, 1911 - ALEJANDRO TECSON v. LA CORPORACION DE LOS PP. DOMINICOS

    019 Phil 79

  • G.R. No. L-5174 March 17, 1911 - CANDIDO PASCUAL v. EUGENIO DEL SAZ OROZCO

    019 Phil 82

  • G.R. No. L-5759 March 17, 191

    WALTER E. OLSEN & CO. v. MATSON

    019 Phil 102

  • G.R. No. 6485 March 17, 1911 - GUTIERREZ HERMANOS v. ORIA HERMANOS

    019 Phil 104

  • G.R. No. L-6002 March 18, 1911 - AMERICAN SURETY OF NEW YORK, ET AL. v. PRUDENCIO BATANGAN

    019 Phil 110

  • G.R. No. L-6061 March 18, 1911 - UNITED STATES v. MATEO PADO, ET AL.

    019 Phil 111

  • G.R. No. L-6082 March 18, 1911 - UNITED STATES v. ISIDRO VICENTILLO

    019 Phil 118

  • G.R. No. L-6231 March 18, 1911 - CELESTINO SYTIAR CLEMENTE v. AMBROSIO MARASIGAN

    019 Phil 120

  • G.R. No. 6365 March 18, 1911 - CANUTA GUERRERO v. EULALIO SINGSON, ET AL.

    019 Phil 122

  • G.R. No. 6469 March 18, 1911 - UNITED STATES v. EUSTAQUIO SIMBAHAN

    019 Phil 123

  • G.R. No. 6378 March 20, 1911 - UNITED STATES v. PELAGIO CAPA, ET AL.

    019 Phil 125

  • G.R. No. 6624 March 20, 1911 - UNITED STATES v. PEDRO BANILA

    019 Phil 130

  • G.R. No. L-6160 March 21, 1911 - UNITED STATES v. DANIEL NAVARRO

    019 Phil 134

  • G.R. No. L-6230 March 21, 1911 - A.R. HAGER v. ALBERT J. BRYAN

    019 Phil 138

  • G.R. No. 6276 March 21, 1911 - TOMASA M. SANTIAGO ET AL. v. MARCELA C. CRUZ

    019 Phil 145

  • G.R. No. 6344 March 21, 1911 - UNITED STATES v. MANUEL RODRIGUEZ, ET AL.

    019 Phil 150

  • G.R. No. 6481 March 21, 1911 - UNITED STATES v. QUINTIN MONDEJAR

    019 Phil 158

  • G.R. No. 5688 March 22, 1911 - HENRY BLUM v. MARIANO BARRETTO

    019 Phil 161

  • G.R. No. 6432 March 22, 1911 - UNITED STATES v. PEDRO BALAGTAS, ET AL.

    019 Phil 164

  • G.R. No. L-6008 March 23, 1911 - UNITED STATES v. FAUSTINA ORTIZ, ET AL.

    019 Phil 174

  • G.R. No. L-6128 March 23, 1911 - UNITED STATES v. SILVESTRE ARZADON

    019 Phil 175

  • G.R. No. 6427 March 23, 1911 - UNITED STATES v. CONSTANCIO FLORES

    019 Phil 178

  • G.R. No. 6491 March 23, 1911 - UNITED STATES v. TAMPACAN, ET AL.

    019 Phil 185

  • G.R. No. L-5815 March 24, 1911 - UNITED STATES v. PALA, ET AL.

    019 Phil 190

  • G.R. No. L-3026 March 25, 1911 - UNITED STATES v. MELCHOR BABASA

    019 Phil 198

  • G.R. No. L-5333 March 25, 1911 - UY ALOC, ET AL. v. CHO JAN LING, ET AL.

    019 Phil 202

  • G.R. No. L-5640 March 25, 1911 - BENIGNO GOITIA v. CHARTERED BANK OF INDIA

    019 Phil 206

  • G.R. No. L-5843 March 25, 191

    UNITED STATES v. CANUTO GUSTILO

    019 Phil 208

  • G.R. No. L-6016 March 25, 1911 - ANDRES PUNZALAN v. SISENANDO FERRIOLS

    019 Phil 214

  • G.R. No. L-6019 March 25, 1911 - JUAN N. ARAGON v. INSULAR GOVERNMENT

    019 Phil 223

  • G.R. No. 6372 March 27, 1911 - UNITED STATES v. PASCUAL MOLINA

    019 Phil 227

  • G.R. No. 6354 March 28, 1911 - UNITED STATES v. EDUARDO SALAZAR, ET AL.

    019 Phil 233

  • G.R. No. L-5939 March 29, 1911 - JOSE MARIN v. VALENTINA NACIANCENO

    019 Phil 238

  • G.R. No. 6760 March 29, 1911 - NICOLAS E. NUÑEZ v. CHAS. A. LOW

    019 Phil 244

  • G.R. No. 6044 March 30, 1911 - MANUEL M. PADIN v. R. E. HUMPHEMREYS, ET AL.

    019 Phil 254

  • G.R. No. 4877 March 31, 1911 - CRISANTO LICHAUCO v. CHO-CHUN CHAC

    019 Phil 258