People v. Infante
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Consolacion Infante and Emeterio Ramos were charged with adultery by Manuel Artigas, Jr., the offended party, in the Court of First Instance of Manila. Procedural History: The accused initially pleaded not guilty but later withdrew their plea and substituted it with a plea of guilty. The trial judge sentenced each of them to two years, four months, and one day of imprisonment, prision correccional, with accessory penalties and costs. The Petition: Consolacion Infante appealed the judgment. Subsequently, a motion to dismiss was filed based on an affidavit by Manuel Artigas, Jr., pardoning his wife for her infidelity.
Issue(s)
Whether the appellate court can review the assurance given by an attorney regarding a sentence after a plea of guilty. Whether a pardon granted by the offended party after the institution of criminal prosecution for adultery is a valid ground for dismissal. Whether the penalty imposed was in accordance with law, considering the mitigating circumstance of a plea of guilty.
Ruling
The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the lower court and denied the motion for dismissal.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of the appellate court's review of assurances made by counsel: The appellate court cannot go into the question of whether or not the plea of guilty was made on the assurance given by the appellant's attorney that she would only be sentenced to a maximum penalty not exceeding six months. This is because the plea of guilty, once entered and accepted, is binding, and the appellate court's review is generally limited to errors of law or fact appearing on the record, not collateral assurances made during the proceedings. On the issue of pardon after institution of criminal prosecution: The attempted pardon by the offended party after the institution of the criminal prosecution cannot prosper. Article 344 of the Revised Penal Code clearly states that the offended party cannot institute criminal prosecution without including both guilty parties, nor in any case if he shall have consented or pardoned the offenders. This provision requires that the pardon must be given before the institution of the criminal prosecution and must extend to both offenders to be effective. The pardon in this case was granted after the prosecution had already commenced and was only for the wife, thus failing to meet the legal requirements. On the issue of penalty imposition: The crime committed falls under Article 333 of the Revised Penal Code. The presence of a mitigating circumstance, specifically the plea of guilty, warrants the imposition of the penalty in its minimum degree. The penalty meted out by the trial court, which was the minimum penalty for the crime, was therefore in accordance with law and jurisprudence.
Main Doctrine
A pardon granted by the offended party for adultery must be given before the institution of the criminal prosecution and must include both offenders to be effective.