Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1952 > March 1952 Decisions > G.R. No. L-4271 March 31, 1952 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. CO HAP, ET AL.

091 Phil 89:




PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

EN BANC

[G.R. No. L-4271. March 31, 1952.]

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. CO HAP and TAN LAM, Defendants-Appellants.

Balcoff & Poblador and Jose A. Buendia for Appellant.

Solicitor General Pompeyo Diaz and Solicitor Jose G. Bautista for Appellee.

SYLLABUS


1. PLEA OF GUILTY; WITHDRAWAL OF PLEA OF GUILTY. — The defendants and their lawyer hoped or expected that a plea of guilty would be rewarded with a light sentence, but on being informed, after the plea was entered, that a light penalty was out of the question in view of the provisions of the law, the defendants wanted to back out from their plea and file a motion to withdraw it. Held: The fact that a defendant, knowing his rights and the consequences of his act, hoped or believed, or was led by his counsel or others to hope or believe, that he would receive a milder punishment by pleading guilty than that which would fall to his lot after trial and conviction by a court, presents no ground for the exercise of the discretion necessary to permit a plea of guilty to be withdrawn. Every accused must realize that he cannot attach a string to his plea of guilt.


D E C I S I O N


REYES, J.:


Co Hap and Tan Lam were charged in the Court of First Instance of Manila with a violation of Executive Order No. 331, Series of 1950, in connection with Republic Act No. 509, for selling evaporated milk to the public at a price higher than the maximum fixed in said executive order, and on a plea of guilty freely and spontaneously made they were sentenced each to pay a fine of P5,000, with subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency, and the costs, and to be barred from engaging in the wholesale and retail business in the Philippines for a period of five years, with a recommendation that they be immediately deported as provided for in the Act. But before this sentence was promulgated, both accused, having been made to understand that the Court was not disposed to impose a light penalty, moved for permission to withdraw their plea of guilty in order to substitute it with a plea of not guilty. The motion having been denied and the sentence promulgated, the accused appealed to this Court, praying that they be acquitted on the ground that the trial court had abused its discretion in not allowing them to withdraw their plea of guilty.

We find the appeal unmeritorious. The Rules of Court (Sec. 6, Rule 114) leave it to the discretion of the court to permit or not to permit the withdrawal of a plea of guilty. It is alleged that in this case the plea of guilty was made under a misapprehension consisting in the belief that under the law the accused Tan Lam is criminally liable when in reality he is not, because, although the license of the store where the commodity in question was sold is in his name, he is a mere dummy of his co-accused, the real owner of that store. This allegation is not convincing, considering that the accused were assisted by able counsel when they came to court and entered a plea of guilty. What appears to have actually happened is that the accused and their lawyer hoped or expected that a plea of guilty would be rewarded with a light sentence, but on being informed, after the plea was entered, that a light penalty was out of the question in view of the provisions of the law, the accused wanted to back out from their plea and filed a motion to withdraw it. This is borne out by the following excerpt from the transcript of the stenographic notes taken at the hearing of the motion to withdraw:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"COURT:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"The Court is not satisfied with the grounds proferred by the defense. I cannot see my way clear to allow them to withdraw. These two accused imposed upon the Court to enter a plea of ’guilty’ at the time when their case was not even set for arraignment. Now, when it was explained to the defendants by the Court that the minimum penalty imposed by the law was not less than Two Thousand Pesos (P2,000.00), it seems that their reaction was that they were scared because they have been made to understand that under the law, they would only be sentenced to pay a fine of as low as P25.00, as imposed by another branch of this Court. When the Court informed them that that could not be done and the same information was given to the lawyer representing the defendants, then it was only then that they signified their intention to back out. This Court will not permit such tactics. It is undignified for the Court; it is an offense against the dignity of the Court. The accused came up here with their attorney and entered a plea of ’Guilty’ and under the assistance of such counsel, they are deemed to understand the consequences of their acts. Once they have entered their plea of ’guilty’, the Court will not permit them to withdraw and back out simply because they found the penalty severe. The Court is sorry to say that it cannot permit such folly."cralaw virtua1aw library

People v. Manriquez, 20 L. R. A. 1141-1143, is a case in point. In that case the Supreme Court of California said:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"Another ground upon which the appellant based his motion for vacation of the judgment was that his plea of guilty was entered without due deliberation, and with the hope and expectation that the punishment to which he might be exposed would be mitigated. Even if such were the case, the fact that a defendant, knowing his rights and the consequences of his act, hoped or believed, or was led by his counsel, or others, to hope or believe, that he would receive a milder punishment by pleading guilty than that which would fall to his lot after trial and conviction by a jury, presents no ground for the exercise of the discretion necessary to permit a plea of guilty to be withdrawn."cralaw virtua1aw library

Applicable to the present case is also the following pronouncement of this Supreme Court in the case of People v. Pangilinan, 74 Phil., 451, 454:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

". . . . Every accused must realize that he cannot attach a string to his plea of guilt. Truth is imminent and immutable; it is absolute and unconditional; it cannot be affected or converted into an untruth by any extraneous influence. Therefore, appellant’s position - that he is guilty if the penalty for the crime is that recommended by the fiscal but not guilty if it is that actually imposed by the court - is untenable. . . . ."cralaw virtua1aw library

Section of the Republic Act violated by the accused declares it "to be the national policy during the effectivity of this Act to prevent . . . profiteering" in controlled commodities, the idea being to protect the people from want in times of scarcity in food and other necessities. This great objective can only be achieved if the stiff penalties prescribed in the Act are not allowed to be circumvented through the use of any legal subterfuge.

The sentence appealed from is therefore affirmed, with costs.

Paras, C.J., Pablo, Bengzon, Padilla, Tuason, Montemayor, Jugo and Bautista Angelo, JJ., concur.




Back to Home | Back to Main


chanrobles.com



ChanRobles On-Line Bar Review

ChanRobles Internet Bar Review : www.chanroblesbar.com





March-1952 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. L-4961 March 5, 1952 - ASUNCION PARKER v. HON. ALEJANDRO J. PANLILIO

    091 Phil 1

  • G.R. No. L-3821 March 17, 1952 - PRIMITIVA CANALES v. FILOTEO ARROGANTE

    091 Phil 6

  • G.R. No. L-4197 March 20, 1952 - FIDELA SALES DE GONZAGA v. THE CROWN LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY

    091 Phil 10

  • G.R. No. L-4556 March 21, 1952 - STANDARD-VACUUM OIL COMPANY v. PHILIPPINE LABOR ORGANIZATIONS

    091 Phil 15

  • G.R. No. L-4833 March 21, 1952 - FRANCISCO R. VILLAROMAN v. HON. GAVINO S. ABAYA

    091 Phil 20

  • G.R. No. L-4854 March 21, 1952 - JOSE R. JACINTO v. SEGUNDO FERNANDO

    091 Phil25cralaw:red

  • G.R. No. L-4330 March 24, 1952 - MANILA ORIENTAL SAWMILL CO. v. NATIONAL LABOR UNION, ET AL.

    091 Phil 28

  • G.R. No. L-4621 March 24, 1952 - P. M. P. NAVIGATION COMPANY v. BIBIANO L. MEER

    091 Phil 32

  • G.R. No. L-3859 March 25, 1952 - PHILIPPINE RAILWAY CO. v. COLLECTOR OF INTERNAL REVENUE

    091 Phil 35

  • G.R. No. L-4594 March 26, 1952 - VIRGILIO V. VILLANUEVA and ANGELITA VILLANUEVA SANIDAD v. FIDEL VILLANUEVA

    091 Phil 43

  • G.R. No. L-3526 March 27, 1952 - REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL. v. SEGUNDA L. GARCIA

    091 Phil 46

  • G.R. No. L-3217 March 28, 1952 - EL PUEBLO DE FILIPINAS v. DIOSCORO PINUELA

    091 Phil 53

  • G.R. Nos. L-4146 & L-4147 March 28, 1952 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. VICENTE MENDOZA

    091 Phil 58

  • G.R. No. L-4604 March 28, 1952 - ZAMBOANGA TRANSPORTATION CO. v. ERNESTO FARGAS

    091 Phil 65

  • G.R. No. L-4618 March 28, 1952 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ROMEO GOLEZ

    091 Phil 68

  • G.R. No. L-4834 March 28, 1952 - LIBERAL LABOR UNION v. PHIL. CAN CO.

    091 Phil 72

  • G.R. No. L-4057 March 31, 1952 - CONNEL BROS. COMPANY (PHIL.) v. FRANCISCO ADUNA, ET AL.

    091 Phil 79

  • G.R. No. L-4111 March 31, 1952 - UNITED WORKERS OF THE PHILIPPINES v. BISAYA LAND TRANSPORTATION CO., ET AL.

    091 Phil 85

  • G.R. No. L-4271 March 31, 1952 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. CO HAP, ET AL.

    091 Phil 89

  • G.R. No. L-4423 March 31, 1952 - UNION OF THE PHILIPPINE EDUCATION EMPLOYEES v. PHILIPPINE EDUCATION CO.

    091 Phil 93

  • G.R. Nos. L-4579 & L-4674 March 31, 1952 - TALISAY-SILAY MILLING CO. v. HON. JOSE TEODORO

    091 Phil 101

  • G.R. No. L-5422 March 31, 1952 - FELIX T. CARO v. SILVINO M. GUMPAL Y OTROS

    091 Phil 107