G.R. No. L-10875; April 28, 1958
THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. SEBASTIAN S. LAMBINO, defendant-appellant.

FACTS

The appellant, Sebastian S. Lambino, was charged in the Court of First Instance of Pangasinan with malversation of public funds amounting to P16,287.65. After several postponements, he was arraigned on March 12, 1953, and pleaded not guilty. The trial was set for hearing on multiple dates but was postponed upon the appellant’s petitions. On July 13, 1954, the appellant filed a motion alleging the absence of a preliminary investigation and vagueness in the information. The court postponed the hearing to July 29, 1954. On that date, before trial commenced, the appellant reiterated his petition for preliminary investigation, which was denied. The trial proceeded, and the prosecution presented its first witness, Auditor Dalmacio Ramos, who testified about the shortage in the appellant’s accounts as municipal treasurer. Before the witness finished his testimony, the appellant, through counsel, asked to withdraw his plea of not guilty and substitute it with a plea of guilty, requesting the benefit of the indeterminate sentence and a deferral of the sentence reading. The court granted the petition, rearraigned the appellant, who then voluntarily pleaded guilty. The court rendered a decision on July 31, 1954, finding the appellant guilty and imposing an indeterminate sentence, a fine, perpetual special disqualification, indemnity, and costs. On August 14, 1954, the appellant filed a petition to withdraw his plea of guilty, claiming he was influenced by outside intervention and did not fully understand the consequences. The lower court promulgated the decision, impliedly overruling the motion. The appellant then filed a motion for reconsideration and new trial, alleging errors and newly discovered evidence (list of Naric rice debtors and chits), which was overruled. The case was elevated to the Court of Appeals, which certified it to the Supreme Court as only questions of law were raised.

ISSUE

1. Whether the lower court erred in not granting the appellant’s motion for preliminary investigation.
2. Whether the lower court erred in not granting the appellant’s petition to withdraw his plea of guilty.
3. Whether the lower court erred in overruling the appellant’s motion for reconsideration and new trial.

RULING

1. The Supreme Court found no error in the lower court’s denial of the motion for preliminary investigation. The right to a preliminary investigation may be waived, and the appellant waived it by failing to claim it before pleading not guilty on March 12, 1953. Furthermore, the appellant’s conduct after the denial—allowing the prosecution to present a witness without taking steps to bring the matter to a higher court—constituted estoppel. The Court presumed that the judge conducted the necessary investigation under Rule 108, Section 4, before issuing the arrest warrant.
2. The Supreme Court held that the lower court did not err in denying the petition to withdraw the plea of guilty. The withdrawal of a plea of guilty before judgment is not a matter of strict right but is within the sound discretion of the trial court. The record showed that the appellant had considered pleading guilty as early as June 17, 1954, and entered the plea after consultation with his attorney and after a prosecution witness had convincingly testified. The Court found that the appellant could not have pleaded guilty involuntarily without realizing the consequences and should not be allowed to gamble with his plea by withdrawing it after learning the penalty imposed.
3. The Supreme Court found the appellant’s contention untenable. By pleading guilty, the appellant admitted all the facts alleged in the information and was precluded from showing he did not commit them. The newly discovered evidence (list of rice debtors and chits) would only tend to prove that he disposed of rice on credit without authority, thereby malversing the proceeds, and would not relieve him of responsibility or alter the decision.
Regarding the penalty, the Supreme Court modified the lower court’s decision. The plea of guilty could not be considered a mitigating circumstance because it was entered after the prosecution had presented part of the evidence. Under Article 217, No. 4 of the Revised Penal Code, for the amount involved (over P12,000 but less than P20,000), the penalty is reclusion temporal in its medium and maximum periods. Applying the Indeterminate Sentence Law, the minimum penalty should be prision mayor in its maximum to reclusion temporal in its minimum (10 years and 1 day to 14 years and 8 months), and the maximum should be 16 years, 5 months, and 11 days of reclusion temporal. The Court modified the penalty accordingly.
The decision was affirmed with the modification of the penalty, with costs against the appellant.