People v. Damiao
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: On January 22, 1931, the accused, Roman Damiao, allegedly attacked Cayetano Dablio with a bolo, inflicting wounds on the left forearm and other parts of the body, rendering the forearm permanently useless. The information alleged that the attack was committed with treachery and evident premeditation, with the intent to kill, and that death was prevented only by timely medical attendance. Procedural History: The accused pleaded guilty to the charge of frustrated murder before the Court of First Instance of Oriental Misamis. The court rendered a judgment of conviction on May 26, 1931. Subsequently, on June 1, 1931, the appellant filed a motion for reconsideration, praying to withdraw his plea of guilty and substitute it with a plea of not guilty, and to be given an opportunity to present evidence. This motion was neither verified nor accompanied by an affidavit of merits. The court denied this motion on July 11, 1931. The Petition: The accused appealed the judgment of conviction, arguing that the trial court erred in not granting his petition to substitute his plea of guilty with a plea of not guilty.
Issue(s)
Whether the trial court erred in denying the appellant's motion to withdraw his plea of guilty and substitute it with a plea of not guilty after judgment of conviction was rendered. Whether the penalty imposed by the trial court was in accordance with law.
Ruling
The Supreme Court modified the judgment of the trial court. It affirmed the denial of the motion to withdraw the plea of guilty but corrected the penalty imposed. The appellant was sentenced to twelve years and one day of reclusion temporal, to indemnify the offended party in the amount of P300, with the other accessories of the law, and to pay the costs of both instances.
Ratio Decidendi
On the denial of the motion to withdraw the plea of guilty: The Court held that the trial court did not err in denying the motion. Firstly, the petition was presented too late, as the court had already lost jurisdiction of the case by virtue of the appeal taken by the appellant. Secondly, the motion was not supported by an affidavit of merits and was not even verified. The Court reiterated the principle that after a judgment of conviction has been rendered, a motion to substitute a plea of guilty for a plea of not guilty is equivalent to a petition for rehearing and must be verified and supported by an affidavit of merits, citing the case of Fiscal of the City of Manila vs. Del Rosario. The trial judge has control over judgments until they become final, but cannot act in a manner that nullifies explicit provisions of law. Such a motion must assume the characteristics of a motion for reopening the case, with reasons justifying the granting of a new trial. On the penalty imposed: The Court found that the penalty imposed by the trial court was not in accordance with law. The penalty for frustrated murder, under article 403 in connection with article 65 of the Penal Code, is presidio mayor in the maximum to cadena temporal in the medium degree. The information alleged the aggravating circumstance of evident premeditation, in addition to the qualifying circumstance of treachery. However, the Court noted that the mitigating circumstance of a plea of guilty, as introduced by the Revised Penal Code, should be considered. Therefore, the penalty should be applied in the medium degree, extending from twelve years and one day to fourteen years and eight months of reclusion temporal. The Court explicitly stated that cadena temporal has been eliminated by the Revised Penal Code, thus modifying the sentence to twelve years and one day of reclusion temporal.
Main Doctrine
A motion to withdraw a plea of guilty and substitute it with a plea of not guilty, filed after a judgment of conviction has been rendered, is equivalent to a petition for rehearing and must be verified and supported by an affidavit of merits. Such a motion, if presented too late after the appeal has been perfected, may be denied.