SECOND DIVISION
[G.R. No. 33522. October 31, 1930. ]
THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. ANTONIO UBALDO and FELIX TUASON, Defendants-Appellants.
Gregorio Perfecto, Leopoldo S. Movido and Francisco A. Astilla for Appellants.
Attorney-General Jaranilla for Appellee.
SYLLABUS
1. CRIMINAL PROCEDURE; PLEA OF GUILTY, WITHDRAWAL OF. — Where the record conclusively shows that the accused freely, voluntarily and spontaneously entered the plea of guilty with a full and complete realization of the meaning an consequences of that plea, after the same had been clearly explained to him by the court, he shall not be allowed to withdraw that plea and substitute therefor the plea of not guilty. The lower court committed no error in denying his motion to withdraw his plea of guilty.
D E C I S I O N
JOHNSON, J.:
On the 26th day of March, 1930, an information was filed in the Court of First Instance of the City of Manila against said defendants, charging them with the crime of frustrated murder (frustrated parricide as to Remedios Avelino de Linao). The information alleged:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph
"That at about midnight of the 24th day of March, 1930, in the City of Manila, Philippine Islands, the accused Remedios Avelino de Linao, then being the lawful wife of one Joaquin Linao, conspiring and confederating with her four coaccused persons who were fully aware of the existence of said marital relation, and all of said accused helping one another, did then and there willfuly, unlawfully, feloniously, and with intent to kill, taking advantage of the cover of darkness which they purposely sought therefor, with evident premeditation and for a price or promise of reward, treacherously assault, beat, and wound the said Joaquin Linao at his dwelling at No. 145 Jesus Street, in said city, by then and there strangling him and stabbing him on a vital part of the chest and other parts of the body while he was asleep in his said dwelling, thereby performing all acts of execution which would produce the death of said Joaquin Linao as a consequence but which, nevertheless, did not produce it by reason of causes independent of the will of said accused persons, to wit, the timely and effective intervention of medical assistance.
"Contrary to law."cralaw virtua1aw library
Upon petition of counsel for Remedios Avelino de Linao, she was allowed a reasonable time to study and prepare her answer to the information. She was therefore not included in the arraignment.
The information was read to the other four accused, Antonio Ubaldo, Felix Tuason, Agapito Toreno and Elpidio Gaspay. Before the reading, they were each asked by the court whether or not they needed the services of an attorney, and they each answered in the negative. Antonio Ubaldo and Felix Tuason entered in the negative. Antonio Ubaldo and Felix Tuason entered a plea of guilty. Agapito Toreno at first pleaded guilty, but after some questions and explanations by the court, he entered a plea of not guilty. Elpidio Gaspay also entered a plea of not guilty.
By virtue of the plea of guilty entered by Antonio Ubaldo and Felix Tuason, Anacleto Diaz, judge, sentenced each of them to suffer the minimum penalty prescribed by law for frustrated murder, to wit, twelve years and one day of cadena temporal, with the accessory penalties of the law and to pay a proportional part of the costs. The minimum penalty was imposed, upon the express recommendation of the fiscal in view of their spontaneous admission of guilt.
From that sentence both Ubaldo and Tuason appealed, and now make the following assignments of error:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph
"1. The court erred in sentencing each of the appellants to twelve years and one day of cadena temporal on the strength of their plea of guilty.
"2. The court erred in holding that the appellants fully and clearly understood the consequences of their plea of guilty.
"3. The court erred in not allowing the appellants to withdraw their plea of guilty that they may enter a plea of not guilty."cralaw virtua1aw library
The main contention of the attorney for the appellants in said three assignments of error is, that the appellants did not fully and clearly realize the meaning and import of their plea of guilty, and that they were not fully apprised by the court of the consequences thereof.
This contention is untenable. A careful reading of the evidence shows that the trial court spared no efforts in order to make sure that the appellants understood fully and clearly the meaning and consequences of their plea of guilty. In the first place, before the arraignment the court repeatedly advised them of their right to have an attorney, but they invariably answered that they did not need an attorney. The trial court, addressing the accused in this connection, said:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph
"El JUZGADO. El Juzgado vuelve a informarles que Vds. tienen derecho, seun la ley constitucional para tener la ayuda y disponer de los consejos de un abogado. Estando como ustedes estan presos, el Juzgado aun tiene obligacion de proveerles de un abogado para aconsejarles.
"LOS ACUSADOS (cada uno). No necesitamos los servicios de un abogado.
"El JUZGADO. Advertidos de este derecho de tener los servicios de un abogado
"That at about midnight of the 24th day of March, 1930, in the City of Manila, Philippine Islands, the accused Remedios Avelino de Linao, then being the lawful wife of one Joaquin Linao, conspiring and confederating with her four coaccused persons who were fully aware of the existence of said marital relation, and all of said accused helping one another, did then and there willfuly, unlawfully, feloniously, and with intent to kill, taking advantage of the cover of darkness which they purposely sought therefor, with evident premeditation and for a price or promise of reward, treacherously assault, beat, and wound the said Joaquin Linao at his dwelling at No. 145 Jesus Street, in said city, by then and there strangling him and stabbing him on a vital part of the chest and other parts of the body while he was asleep in his said dwelling, thereby performing all acts of execution which would produce the death of said Joaquin Linao as a consequence but which, nevertheless, did not produce it by reason of causes independent of the will of said accused persons, to wit, the timely and effective intervention of medical assistance.
"Contrary to law."cralaw virtua1aw library
Upon petition of counsel for Remedios Avelino de Linao, she was allowed a reasonable time to study and prepare her answer to the information. She was therefore not included in the arraignment.
The information was read to the other four accused, Antonio Ubaldo, Felix Tuason, Agapito Toreno and Elpidio Gaspay. Before the reading, they were each asked by the court whether or not they needed the services of an attorney, and they each answered in the negative. Antonio Ubaldo and Felix Tuason entered in the negative. Antonio Ubaldo and Felix Tuason entered a plea of guilty. Agapito Toreno at first pleaded guilty, but after some questions and explanations by the court, he entered a plea of not guilty. Elpidio Gaspay also entered a plea of not guilty.
By virtue of the plea of guilty entered by Antonio Ubaldo and Felix Tuason, Anacleto Diaz, judge, sentenced each of them to suffer the minimum penalty prescribed by law for frustrated murder, to wit, twelve years and one day of cadena temporal, with the accessory penalties of the law and to pay a proportional part of the costs. The minimum penalty was imposed, upon the express recommendation of the fiscal in view of their spontaneous admission of guilt.
From that sentence both Ubaldo and Tuason appealed, and now make the following assignments of error:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph
"1. The court erred in sentencing each of the appellants to twelve years and one day of cadena temporal on the strength of their plea of guilty.
"2. The court erred in holding that the appellants fully and clearly understood the consequences of their plea of guilty.
"3. The court erred in not allowing the appellants to withdraw their plea of guilty that they may enter a plea of not guilty."cralaw virtua1aw library
The main contention of the attorney for the appellants in said three assignments of error is, that the appellants did not fully and clearly realize the meaning and import of their plea of guilty, and that they were not fully apprised by the court of the consequences thereof.
This contention is untenable. A careful reading of the evidence shows that the trial court spared no efforts in order to make sure that the appellants understood fully and clearly the meaning and consequences of their plea of guilty. In the first place, before the arraignment the court repeatedly advised them of their right to have an attorney, but they invariably answered that they did not need an attorney. The trial court, addressing the accused in this connection, said:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph
"El JUZGADO. El Juzgado vuelve a informarles que Vds. tienen derecho, seun la ley constitucional para tener la ayuda y disponer de los consejos de un abogado. Estando como ustedes estan presos, el Juzgado aun tiene obligacion de proveerles de un abogado para aconsejarles.
"LOS ACUSADOS (cada uno). No necesitamos los servicios de un abogado.
"El JUZGADO. Advertidos de este derecho de tener los servicios de un abogado
