G.R. No. L-3487; April 18, 1951
The People of the Philippines, plaintiff-appellee, vs. Pedro Santa Rosa, defendant-appellant.

FACTS

Pedro Santa Rosa was accused before the Court of First Instance of Mindoro for the illegal possession of a firearm, specifically a carbine, caliber 30, bearing serial No. 1928819, without a license or permit, on June 1, 1948. Upon arraignment on February 12, 1949, he pleaded guilty. The trial court rendered a decision sentencing him to an indeterminate imprisonment of five to seven years, applying the minimum penalty due to his guilty plea and the Indeterminate Sentence Law, and ordered the confiscation of the firearm. The defendant appealed, assigning as error the trial court’s act of sentencing him on his plea of guilty without compelling the prosecutor to introduce evidence to serve as a basis for imposing the correct penalty.

ISSUE

Whether the trial court erred in sentencing the appellant upon his plea of guilty without requiring the prosecution to present evidence to determine the correct penalty.

RULING

No, the trial court did not err. The hearing of witnesses after a defendant pleads guilty is discretionary with the court under Section 5 of Rule 114. A plea of guilty, when formally entered on arraignment, is sufficient to sustain a conviction without further evidence, as the defendant supplies the necessary proof by his plea. The trial court acted within its discretionary power. The cases cited by the appellant’s counsel (U.S. vs. Rota and U.S. vs. Jamad) indicate that while taking testimony in serious cases after a guilty plea is advisable, it remains discretionary. The trial court did not commit any abuse of discretion, especially as it imposed the minimum penalty. The judgment appealed from was affirmed.