G.R. No. L-13470. March 27, 1961.
THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. SEGUNDO ABEJERO Y CID, defendant-appellant.

FACTS

Segundino Abejero y Cid was charged with the crime of robbery for unlawfully entering the Bicol Central Academy building in Libmanan, Camarines Sur, on July 5, 1957, and stealing various school supplies and a typewriter valued at P269.00, all of which were subsequently recovered. Upon arraignment in the Court of First Instance on November 6, 1957, the appellant, assisted by his appointed counsel de oficio, entered a plea of guilty. The trial court rendered judgment on November 20, 1957, sentencing him to an indeterminate penalty ranging from one year to two years, four months, and one day of prision correccional, considering the mitigating circumstance of his plea of guilty.
Subsequently, on November 26, 1957, the appellant, now represented by a private counsel, filed a verified motion to set aside the judgment and to change his plea to not guilty. He attached an affidavit claiming that at the time of his arraignment, he was unaware of the meaning and consequences of his guilty plea, that he was a minor of good moral character, and that he was suffering from a mental defect. The trial court denied this motion on December 3, 1957, prompting the present appeal.

ISSUE

Whether the trial court erred in denying the appellant’s motion to withdraw his plea of guilty and to set aside the judgment.

RULING

The Supreme Court affirmed the trial court’s denial and modified the penalty. The legal logic is that a plea of guilty, when entered voluntarily and with the assistance of counsel, is binding and cannot be lightly withdrawn. The record established that during the arraignment, the information was read and translated into the local dialect, and the appellant confirmed he understood it while assisted by his counsel de oficio. Given this assistance, the trial court was no longer under a duty to warn him of the consequences of his plea.
Furthermore, the appellant’s claim of ignorance or mental defect was unsubstantiated and appeared to be an afterthought. The Court noted that during the preliminary investigation before the Justice of the Peace, the appellant was apprised of his rights, warned that his plea could be used against him, and he still insisted on pleading guilty. As a third-year high school student, he could not plausibly pretend ignorance. The crime committed is robbery under Article 294(5) of the Revised Penal Code, as amended, punishable by prision correccional maximum to prision mayor medium. With the mitigating circumstance of a plea of guilty and no aggravating circumstance, the penalty should be imposed in its minimum period. Applying the Indeterminate Sentence Law, the Supreme Court modified the sentence to an indeterminate penalty of four months and one day of arresto mayor to four years and two months of prision correccional as minimum, and four years, two months and one day to six years, one month and ten days of prision correccional as maximum.