ChanRobles™ Virtual Law Library | chanrobles.com™  
Main Index Law Library Philippine Laws, Statutes & Codes Latest Legal Updates Philippine Legal Resources Significant Philippine Legal Resources Worldwide Legal Resources Philippine Supreme Court Decisions United States Jurisprudence
Prof. Joselito Guianan Chan's The Labor Code of the Philippines, Annotated Labor Standards & Social Legislation Volume I of a 3-Volume Series 2019 Edition (3rd Revised Edition)
 

 
Chan Robles Virtual Law Library
 









 

 
UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE
 

 
PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE
 

   
January-1958 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. Nos. L-9456 & L-9481 January 6, 1958 - THE COLLECTOR OF INTERNAL REVENUE v. DOMINGO DE LARA

    102 Phil 813

  • G.R. No. L-9692 January 6, 1958 - COLLECTOR OF INTERNAL REVENUE v. BATANGAS TRANSPORTATION COMPANY

    102 Phil 822

  • G.R. Nos. L-8845-46 January 7, 1958 - BATANGAS TRANSPORTATION COMPANY v. MARTIN SOUZA

    102 Phil 835

  • G.R. No. L-10202 January 8, 1958 - IN RE: SY CHHUT alias TAN BING TIONG v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

    102 Phil 839

  • G.R. No. L-10420 January 10, 1958 - IN RE: LIM KIM So alias FRANCISCO LIM KIM SO v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

    102 Phil 843

  • G.R. Nos. L-10249-60 January 14, 1958 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. RUFINO CRISOSTOMO

    102 Phil 846

  • G.R. No. L-10285 January 14, 1958 - SAMPAGUITA SHOE v. COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS

    102 Phil 850

  • G.R. No. L-10423 January 21, 1958 - AMADO P. JALANDONI v. ANGELA MARTIR-GUANZON

    102 Phil 859

  • G.R. No. L-11000 January 21, 1958 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ALICIA RAPIRAP

    102 Phil 863

  • G.R. No. L-11014 January 21, 1958 - VICTORIANA ESPIRITU v. THE MUNICIPAL COUNCIL

    102 Phil 866

  • G.R. No. L-10196 January 22, 1958 - SANTOS LUMBER COMPANY v. CITY OF CEBU

    102 Phil 870

  • G.R. No. L-10776 January 23, 1958 - MELITON HERRERA v. THE AUDITOR GENERAL OF THE REP. OF THE PHIL.

    102 Phil 875

  • G.R. No. L-10922 January 23, 1958 - GREGORIO P. DE GUZMAN v. JOSE B. RAMOSO

    102 Phil 883

  • G.R. No. L-12294 January 23, 1958 - UNITED PEPSI-COLA SALES ORGANIZATION (PAFLU) v. HON. ANTONIO CA‘IZARES

    102 Phil 887

  • G.R. No. L-10234 January 24, 1958 - IN RE: Victoriano Yap Subieng to be admitted a citizen of the Phil.; VICTORIANO YAP SUBIENG v. REP. OF THE PHIL.

    102 Phil 892

  • G.R. No. L-9689 January 27, 1958 - JESUS T. QUIAMBAO v. PEDRO R. PERALTA

    102 Phil 899

  • G.R. No. L-10806 January 27, 1958 - DAVID AZNAR v. ASUNCION SUCILLA

    102 Phil 902

  • G.R. No. L-11093 January 27, 1958 - LEONARDO ENAGE LABAJO v. CIRIACO ENRIQUEZ

    102 Phil 907

  • G.R. No. L-10446 January 28, 1958 - COLLEGE OF ORAL & DENTAL SURGERY v. COURT OF TAX APPEALS

    102 Phil 912

  • G.R. No. L-10874 January 28, 1958 - RUFINO D. ANDRES v. THE CROWN LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY

    102 Phil 919

  • G.R. No. L-10702 January 29, 1958 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. SIXTO CABARLES

    102 Phil 926

  • G.R. No. L-10091 January 29, 1958 - BOY SCOUTS OF THE PHIL. v. JULIANA V. ARAOS

    102 Phil 1080

  • G.R. No. L-11343 January 29, 1958 - CARLOS LEDESMA v. COURT OF TAX APPEALS

    102 Phil 931

  • G.R. No. L-11248 January 30, 1958 - ANACLETA VILLAROMAN v. QUIRINO STA. MARIA

    102 Phil 937

  • Adm. Case No. 195 January 31, 1958 - IN RE: Attorney JESUS T. QUIAMBAO

    102 Phil 940

  • G.R. No. L-8252 January 31, 1958 - JOSE C. ZULUETA v. NICANOR NICOLAS

    102 Phil 944

  • G.R. No. L-9871 January 31, 1958 - ATKINS v. B. CUA HIAN TEK

    102 Phil 948

  • G.R. No. L-9928 January 31, 1958 - REP. OF THE PHIL. v. THE COURT OF APPEALS

    102 Phil 953

  • G.R. No. L-10022 January 31, 1958 - NORTHERN MOTORS v. NATIONAL LABOR UNION

    102 Phil 958

  • G.R. No. L-10141 January 31, 1958 - REP. OF THE PHIL. v. PHILIPPINE RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION

    102 Phil 960

  • G.R. Nos. L-10236-48 January 31, 1958 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. EUSTACIO DE LUNA

    102 Phil 968

  • G.R. No. L-10370 January 31, 1958 - THE COLLECTOR OF INTERNAL REVENUE v. MATIAS H. AZNAR

    102 Phil 979

  • G.R. No. L-10547 January 31, 1958 - THE PHIL. GUARANTY CO. v. LAURA DINIO

    102 Phil 991

  • G.R. No. L-10691 January 31, 1958 - ERLINDA STERNBERG v. GONZALO SOLOMON

    102 Phil 995

  • G.R. No. L-10747 January 31, 1958 - MARIANO DIAZ v. PASCUAL MACALINAO

    102 Phil 999

  • G.R. No. L-10902 January 31, 1958 - FLORIDA LAGMAY v. EMERENCIANA QUINIT

    102 Phil 1003

  • G.R. No. L-11024 January 31, 1958 - ALFONSO ANGELES v. THE COURT OF APPEALS, GREOGORIO STA. INES

    102 Phil 1006

  • G.R. No. L-11186 January 31, 1958 - ALFONSO CABABA v. PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION

    102 Phil 1013

  • G.R. No. L-11395 January 31, 1958 - SOTERA GARCIA DIMAGIBA v. HON. AMBROSIO M. GERALDEZ

    102 Phil 1016

  • G.R. No. L-11647 January 31, 1958 - FLORENTINO NAVARRO v. HON. ELOY BELLO

    102 Phil 1019

  • G.R. No. L-12724 January 31, 1958 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. CARIDAD CAPISTRANO

    102 Phil 1025

  •  





     
     

    G.R. No. L-11000 January 21, 1958 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ALICIA RAPIRAP<br /><br />102 Phil 863

     
    PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

    EN BANC

    [G.R. No. L-11000. January 21, 1958.]

    PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. ALICIA RAPIRAP, Defendant-Appellant.

    Catimbang and Pasilaban for Appellant.

    First Assistant Solicitor General Guillermo E. Torres and Solicitor Sumilang V. Bernardo for Appellee.


    SYLLABUS


    1. PLEADING AND PRACTICE; APPEAL, WITHDRAWAL OF; WHEN ALLOWED. — Under Section 12, Rule 118 of the Rules of Court, the withdrawal of the appeal should be allowed upon motion, only before the trial of the case on appeal, and not during or after it. A plea of guilty does not merely join the issues of the complaint or information, but amounts to an admission of guilt and of material facts alleged in the complaint or information (People v. Buco, G.R. No. L-2653, February 28, 1950; People v. Sabilul, 49 O.G. 2743; Rules of Court Annotated, by Moran, Vol. II, p. 806), and in this sense takes the place of the trial itself. Such plea removes the necessity of presenting further evidence and for all intents and purposes the case is deemed tried on its merits and submitted for decision. It leaves the court with no alternative but to impose the penalty prescribed by law (People v. Ng Pek, 46 O.G. Supp. (1) 360)

    2. ID.; ID.; WITHDRAWAL OF APPEAL DISCRETIONARY UPON COURT. — The withdrawal of the appeal rests upon the sound discretion of the court. Where, as in the present case, the move to withdraw the appeal was made only at a time when the court appeared disposed to impose a higher penalty, the denial of the withdrawal of the appeal did not constitute abuse of discretion on the part of the court; on the contrary, it was soundly exercised.


    D E C I S I O N


    REYES, J. B. L., J.:


    Appeal from a decision of the Court of First Instance of Camarines Sur (Criminal Case No. 3335) certified to this Court by the Court of Appeals, as the issue involved is purely a question of law.

    It appears that the appellant, Alicia Rapirap, was charged with, and after due trial was convicted by the Municipal Court of the City of Naga, of the crime of less serious physical injuries and sentenced to pay a fine of P25.00. Not satisfied with said decision, she appealed to the Court of First Instance of Camarines Sur. When the case was called for trial, the accused appeared with her counsel and manifested to the court that she was changing her former plea of not guilty to that of guilty; and having been given the permission of the court to do so, she withdrew her plea of not guilty and upon arraignment anew, Accused voluntarily pleaded guilty to the crime described in the information in the following manner:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

    "That on or about January 16, 1954 in the City of Naga, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the said accused, without any justifiable motive or cause, did, then and there wilfully, unlawfully and feloniously attack, assault and use personal violence upon the herein complainant, Remedios Braca, by hitting the latter with a piece of wood, thereby inflicting upon her physical injuries as per medical certificate hereto attached, to wit;

    Contusion, sacral region, direction of contusion transverse, 3 inches wide and 7 inches long.

    Which injuries have required and may require medical attendance for a period of three (3) to seven (7) days and have incapacitated and may incapacitate said Remedios Braca from performing her customary labor for the same period of time, and as a result thereof, Remedios Braca suffered damages in the amount of P200.00, Philippine currency, in concept of actual and moral damages."cralaw virtua1aw library

    Thereafter, Atty. Catimbang (one of her counsel) asked the court to impose the penalty of P20.00 to the accused, in consideration of her plea of guilty, but the petition was denied. In view of this refusal of the court, the appellant then asked permission to withdraw her appeal, which was also denied. Thereafter, she was sentenced: (1) to suffer the penalty of eleven (11) days arresto menor; (2) to pay the damages in the amount of P200 to the offended party, or to suffer subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency at the rate of P2.50 per day which shall not be more than 1/3 of the principal penalty; and (3) to pay the costs of the proceedings.

    The only issue, tendered in this appeal is whether or not the refusal of the lower court to permit the withdrawal of the appeal from said court was proper under the circumstances. Appellant invokes section 12, Rule 118, of the Rules of Court:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

    "Notwithstanding the perfection of the appeal, the Court of First Instance may allow the appellant to withdraw his appeal before the record has been forwarded by the clerk of the court to the appellate court as provided in Section 8, in which case the judgment shall become final.

    The Court of First Instance may also, in its discretion, allow the appellant from the judgment of the justice of the peace court or judge of a municipal court to withdraw his appeal, provided a motion to that effect is filed before the trial of the case on appeal in which case the judgment of the justice of the peace or municipal court shall become final, the provisions of Section 8, Rule 119, to the contrary notwithstanding, and the case shall be remanded to the court a quo for execution of the judgment.

    In the first place, it is clear from this provision of the Rules that the withdrawal of the appeal should be allowed upon motion, only before the trial of the case on appeal, and not during or after it. In the case of People v. Ilagan (58 Phil. 851), this Court implied that an accused is deemed to have been brought to trial after issues are properly joined with a plea of not guilty. A plea of guilty does not merely join the issues of the complaint or information, but amounts to an admission of guilt and of the material facts alleged in the complaint or information (People v. Buco, G. R. No. L-2633, February 28, 1950; People v. Sabilul, * 49 Off. Gaz., 27434; Rules of Court Annotated, by Moran, Vol. II, p. 806), and in this sense takes the place of the trial itself. Such plea removes the necessity of presenting further evidence and for all intents and purposes the case is deemed tried on its merits and submitted for decision. It leaves the court with no alternative but to impose the penalty prescribed by law (People v. Ng Pek, 46 Off. Gaz., Supp. [1] 360; 81 Phil., 562).

    Secondly, it should be noted that the withdrawal of an appeal under this section rests within the sound discretion of the court. In imposing a higher penalty and not allowing the withdrawal of the appeal by the accused appellant, the court did not abuse its discretion; on the contrary it was soundly exercised. The move to withdraw the appeal was made only at a time when the court appeared disposed to impose a higher penalty, when it denied the recommendation of one of her attorneys to impose a P20.00 fine. No one should be allowed to trifle with the solemn judicial procedure (People v. Pangilinan, 74 Phil. 451) as by permitting parties to a case to take appeals and withdraw them at pleasure, after they become certain that the forthcoming judgment would work adversely to them. Parties and attorneys should realize that the ethics of the market place are not those of courts of justice.

    As the plea of guilty was only taken when the case was on appeal with the Court of First Instance, it was rightfully not considered a mitigating circumstance (People v. Herminio, 64 Phil. 403).

    Finding none of the errors alleged to have been substantiated, we affirm the judgment appealed from with costs against appellant. So ordered.

    Paras, C.J., Bengzon, Padilla, Montemayor, Reyes, A., Bautista Angelo, Labrador, Concepcion, Endencia and Felix, JJ., concur.

    Endnotes:



    * 93 Phil., 567.

    G.R. No. L-11000 January 21, 1958 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ALICIA RAPIRAP<br /><br />102 Phil 863


    Back to Home | Back to Main

     

    QUICK SEARCH

    cralaw

       

    cralaw



     
      Copyright © ChanRobles Publishing Company Disclaimer | E-mail Restrictions
    ChanRobles™ Virtual Law Library | chanrobles.com™
     
    RED