GR L 16938; (October,1961) (Digest)
G.R. No. L-16938; October 27, 1961
THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. RUDY ESCARE, defendant-appellant.
FACTS
Rudy Escare was charged with serious slander before the Court of First Instance of Iloilo. During his arraignment, his request to plead guilty to a lesser offense was denied due to the city fiscal’s opposition. Subsequently, with the assistance of his counsel, Escare pleaded guilty to the offense as charged in the information. The court rendered a judgment of conviction on the same date. Three days after his arraignment, but before the formal promulgation of the judgment, Escare filed a motion to withdraw his plea of guilty and substitute it with a plea of not guilty. He alleged that upon reflection, he realized he should take the risk of a trial, especially since his initial desire to plead to a lesser offense was not accepted. The trial court denied his motion, prompting his appeal.
ISSUE
Whether the trial court committed a reversible error or gravely abused its discretion in denying the appellant’s motion to withdraw his plea of guilty and substitute it with a plea of not guilty.
RULING
The Supreme Court affirmed the trial court’s order and decision, ruling that it did not abuse its discretion. The Court held that the withdrawal of a plea of guilty is not an absolute right of the accused but is a matter addressed to the sound discretion of the trial court. Its ruling will not be disturbed on appeal absent a clear showing of an abuse of that discretion. In this case, no such abuse was found. The appellant, though not a lawyer, was assisted by counsel during his arraignment when he entered his plea. He was therefore fully informed of the nature and consequences of his plea of guilty. His stated reason for seeking a change of plea—that he wished to go to trial after his request to plead to a lesser offense was rejected—was deemed insubstantial and devoid of merit. The Court cited the precedent in People vs. Nueno, which involved a lawyer who sought to change his plea, and emphasized that the discretion of the trial court in such matters is broad. Since the appellant failed to present a compelling justification for the withdrawal, the trial court’s denial was proper.