GR L 4271; (March, 1952) (Digest)
G.R. No. L-4271; March 31, 1952
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. CO HAP and TAN LAM, defendants-appellants.
FACTS
Co Hap and Tan Lam were charged in the Court of First Instance of Manila with violating Executive Order No. 331, Series of 1950, in connection with Republic Act No. 509 , for selling evaporated milk at a price higher than the maximum fixed. They initially entered a plea of guilty freely and spontaneously. After entering the plea but before the sentence was promulgated, they moved for permission to withdraw their plea of guilty and substitute it with a plea of not guilty. This motion was based on an alleged misapprehension that Tan Lam was not criminally liable as he was merely a dummy for Co Hap, the real store owner. The trial court denied the motion, finding the grounds unconvincing, especially since the accused were assisted by counsel. The court noted that the accused only sought to withdraw after being informed that the court was not disposed to impose a light penalty and that the minimum fine under the law was P2,000, contrary to their expectation of a much lower fine. The court sentenced each to pay a fine of P5,000, with subsidiary imprisonment, barred them from engaging in wholesale and retail business for five years, and recommended their deportation. The accused appealed, arguing the trial court abused its discretion in not allowing the withdrawal of their plea.
ISSUE
Whether the trial court abused its discretion in denying the motion of the accused to withdraw their plea of guilty.
RULING
No, the trial court did not abuse its discretion. The Rules of Court leave it to the court’s discretion to permit or not the withdrawal of a plea of guilty. The Supreme Court found the allegation of misapprehension unconvincing as the accused were assisted by able counsel. The true reason for the motion was that the accused hoped for a light sentence but, upon learning the penalty would be severe, wanted to back out. The Court cited People vs. Manriquez, which held that a defendant’s hope or belief of receiving a milder punishment by pleading guilty is no ground for withdrawal. It also cited People vs. Pangilinan, which stated that a plea of guilt cannot be conditional. The Supreme Court emphasized the national policy behind the law to prevent profiteering and protect the public, which would be undermined if such legal tactics were permitted. The appealed sentence was affirmed.