GR L 5196; (November, 1952) (Digest)
G.R. No. L-5196 November 13, 1952
THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. PLARIDEL DIMALANTA, defendant-appellant.
FACTS
On January 4, 1950, an information was filed in the Court of First Instance of Quezon City charging Plaridel Dimalanta with theft of electric current belonging to the Manila Electric Company, valued at P333, by using a “jumper” in April 1949. On the same day, upon arraignment, the accused pleaded guilty. The court immediately sentenced him to six months and one day of prision correccional, and to indemnify the Manila Electric Company in the sum of P333, with subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency. On January 11, 1950, the appellant filed a “Motion for Appeal,” claiming the penalty was excessive given his guilty plea, and was provisionally released upon posting a bail bond. On January 19, 1950, his counsel filed an “Urgent Motion for Permission to Change Plea of Guilty to not Guilty,” alleging that the guilty plea was made on the instruction of another person who promised to pay a fine, and that he could prove his innocence if the case were tried on the merits. On January 21, 1950, in open court, the accused’s counsel petitioned to withdraw this urgent motion to allow the appeal to proceed, which the court granted. The accused appealed to the Supreme Court.
ISSUE
1. Whether the lower court erred in not granting the motion to change the plea from guilty to not guilty.
2. Whether the lower court erred in ordering indemnity to the Manila Electric Company.
3. Whether the lower court erred in not applying the Indeterminate Sentence Law.
4. Whether the lower court erred in imposing the penalty of six months and one day of prision correccional.
RULING
The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the lower court.
1. The lower court did not err regarding the motion to change plea because the accused’s counsel withdrew the said motion. The court’s order explicitly noted the withdrawal upon counsel’s petition, and thus the motion was not denied but considered withdrawn. Consequently, there was no need to discuss the right to change a plea.
2. The issue regarding the indemnity was not specifically addressed in the ruling, as the Court focused on the withdrawn motion and the application of the Indeterminate Sentence Law. The indemnity order stood as part of the affirmed judgment.
3. The lower court did not err in not applying the Indeterminate Sentence Law. The appellant was not entitled to its benefits because the penalty imposed (six months and one day) does not exceed one year, as required by Section 2 of Act No. 4103 (the Indeterminate Sentence Law). The application depends on the penalty actually imposed, not on what could be imposed.
4. The penalty imposed was in accordance with law, and no error was committed by the trial court. The judgment was affirmed with costs against the appellant.