CEFERINO E PAREDES, AS ASSISTANT PROVINCIAL FISCAL OF OCCIDENTAL MISAMIS, PETITIONER AND APPELLEE, VS. FELIX V. BORJA, JUSTICE OF THE PEACE OF BONIFACIO, OCCIDENTAL MISAMIA, AND…

On 9 July 1958 the Assistant Provincial Fiscal of Occidental Misamis
filed a petition for certiorari with preliminary injunction in the
Court of First Instance of the said province against Felix V. Borja,
Justice of the Peace of Bonifacio, Occidental Misamis, and Cresencio
Catalan as respondents, alleging that on 2 June the chief of police
subscribed and on 3 June 1958 swore to a complaint charging the last
named respondent with malicious mischief for pulling and destroying the
corn plants of Josefa Lapora, a tenant of Exaltacion Jagonia de
Amparado, and filed it in the Justice of the Peace Court (Crim. Case
No. 488, Annex A); that on 6 June 1958, upon arraignment, the
respondent, defendant therein, assisted by counsel de oficio, entered a
plea of guilty and the respondent Justice of the Peace Court sentenced
him to indemnify the offended party in the sum of P10, to suffer the
penalty of ten days imprisonment and to pay the costs (Annex B); that
on the same day the respondent filed a motion for reconsideration on
the ground that the imposition of the penalty of ten days imprisonment
“is too severe considering the fact that under Article 329, paragraph
3, of the Revised Penal Code, the penalty may be arresto menor or a
fine of not less than the value of the damage caused and not more than
200 pesos, if the amount involved does not exceed 200 pesos or cannot
be estimated,” and prayed “that instead of the penalty of imprisonment
of 10 days the accused be made to pay a fine only” (Annex C); that on
10 June 1958 the respondent filed an amended motion for reconsideration
alleging that in a civil case between the respondent and his co-heirs
on the one hand and Exaltacion Jagonia de Amparado and her parents on
the other hand, involving ownership of four parcels of land (civil No.
1434) the Court of First Instance of Occidental Misamis had ordered the
therein defendants to return possession to the herein respondent and
his co-heirs one-half of the parcels of land in question described in
certificate of title No. 397; that for that reason he has a legitimate
claim of ownership to the parcel of land from where he uprooted the
growing corn plants and his liability, if any, was only civil and not
criminal in nature; and praying that the judgment of conviction
rendered by the respondent Justice of the Peace Court be set aside;
that his plea of guilty be withdrawn and substituted by another of not
guilty; and that the case be dismissed (Annex D); that on 12 June 1958
the respondent Justice of the Peace Court entered an order setting
aside its judgment dated 6 June 1958, ordering that a plea of not
guilty be entered for the respondent and setting the case for trial on
18 June 1958 (Annex F) ; that on 16 June 1958 the respondent filed a
“motion for postponement” of “the hearing of the amended motion for
reconsideration” to “some other dates” (Annex E); that on 25 June 1958
the petitioner filed an “urgent motion for reconsideration of the order
dated June 12, 1958, setting aside the Judgment,” on the ground that
the respondent’s motions for reconsideration which were in the nature
of motions for rehearing were not verified and not supported by
affidavits of merit; that during the arraignment the respondent was
assisted by counsel and he entered a plea of guilty after his counsel
had explained to him the consequences of entering a plea of guilty; and
that the respondent’s motions for reconsideration were filed and
granted ex-parte and without hearing (Annex G); that on the
same date, 25 June 1958, the respondent Justice ot the Peace Court, in
open court, denied the petitioner’s motion for reconsideration; that on
2 July 1958 the petitioner filed another motion for reconsideration
(Annex H) and on 3 July 1958, again the respondent Justice of the Peace
Court denied the petitioner’s motion; that the respondent Justice of
the Peace Court gravely abused its discretion in entering the order of
12 June 1958 (Annex F) and denying the petitioner’s motions for
reconsideration of 25 June (Annex G) and 2 July 1958 (Annex H; see
Orders of 25 June and 3 July 1958) and entertaining the respondent’s
motions for reconsideration despite the fact that they were not
verified and not supported by affidavits of merit; that there is no
appeal nor any plain, speedy and adequate remedy in the ordinary course
of law; that the respondent Justice of the Peace Court had set the
trial of the case on 11 July 1958 and unless restrained would try it;
and that the trial of the case would work injustice to the petitioner
for it would complicate, aggravate and multiply the issues of the case.
The petitioner prayed that pending determination of the case a writ of
preliminary injunction be issued restraining the respondent Justice of
the Peace Court from further proceeding in and trying criminal case No.
488; that the orders of the respondent Court dated 12 June 1958,
setting aside the judgment dated 6 June 1958 (Annex B), entering a plea
of not guilty for the defendant and setting the case for trial on 18
June 1958 (Annex F) and of 25 June 1958 and 3 July 1958, denying the
petitioner’s motions for reconsideration, be set aside and annulled;
that the respondent Justice of the Peace Court be ordered to execute
its judgment in criminal case No. 488 (Annex B), and that the
respondent be ordered to pay the costs (civil No. 2119).

On 10 July 1958 the Court of First Instance entered an order
directing the respondent Justice of the Peace Court to desist from
further proceeding in criminal case No. 488 and the respondents to
answer the petition within five days from date of service of a copy of
the petition.

On 15 July 1958 the respondents filed their answer to the petition
setting up the defense that after rendition of judgment of conviction
and before it became final, it was discretionary with the Justice of
the Peace Court to grant or deny the defendant’s motion to withdraw a
plea of guilty and enter one of not guilty; that in granting the
defendant’s petition to withdraw his plea of guilty and enter one of
not guilty, the respondent Justice of the Peace Court did not gravely
abuse its discretion; that although the motions to that effect were not
verified and no affidavits of merit were attached thereto, the defects
were cured when the respondent took the witness stand and was examined
under oath by the prosecution and the defense; that the defects were
only in form and no prejudice would be caused thereby; and that to
allow the respondent to be convicted of an offense and imprisoned upon
a plea of guilty improvidently entered would result in a miscarriage of
justice.

On 23 July 1958 the petitioner filed a reply to the respondents’
answer contending that they are estopped from claiming that the
respondent had improvidently entered a plea of guilty since he was
assisted by counsel and citing the cases of Fiscal of Manila vs. del Rosario, 52 Phil., 20 and People vs. Damiao, 56 Phil., 734, in support of his position.

On 23 August 1958 the Court entered an order directing the
petitioner “to file a motion to decide the case on the pleadings.” On
29 August 1958 the petitioner filed a motion submitting the case for
judgment on the pleadings.

On 29 December 1958 the Court rendered judgment holding” * * * that
the actuations of the respondent Jastice of the Peace is very irregular
and suspicious and absolutely unwarranted, * * *” declaring null and
void the orders entered by the respondent Justice of the Peace Court on
12 June, 25 June and 3 July 1958, and ordering it to desist from
further proceeding in criminal tase No. 488 and to execute the judgment
rendered therein on 6 June 1958.

On 9 February 1959 the respondents filed a motion for
reconsideration, on 13 February 1959 the petitioner, an objection
thereto, and on 14 February 1959 the respondents, memorandum in support
of their motion for reconsideration. On 18 March 1959 the Court denied
the respondents’ motion for reconsideration. On 18 April 1959 the
respondents filed a second motion for reconsideration. On 9 May 1959
the respondents filed a notice of appeal. On the same day, 9 May 1959,
the Court denied the respondents’ second motion for reconsideration on
the ground that they had abandoned it by filing a notice of appeal.

Section 6, Rule 114, provides:

The court may in its discretion at any time before
sentence permit a plea of guilty to be withdrawn. If judgment of
conviction has been entered thereon and the same has not become final,
the court may set aside such judgment, and allow a plea of not guilty,
or, with the consent of the fiscal, allow a plea of guilty of a lesser
offense which is necessarily included in the charge.

Before a judgment of conviction upon a plea of guilty becomes final
the Court may, in its discretion, set aside such judgment and allow a
plea of not guilty to be entered by the defendant. Acts done by an
inferior court in the exercise of its discretion will not be interfered
with by an appellate court in the absence of grave abuse. The reasons
of the respondent Justice of the Peace Court in setting: aside its
judgment dated 6 June 1958 convicting the appellant of malicious
mischief and directing that a plea of not guilty be entered in lieu of
that guilty, is that the appellant (the defendant in crim. case No.
488) asserts a valid homestead claim and has a good defense and the
respondent Court has doubts as to his guilt; and in denying the
petitioner’s motion for reconsideration of the last mentioned order,
are:

* * * upon hearing this motion, the accused
testified in open court that the land from which he had uprooted young
corn plants so as to build his house thereon and for which he is now
prosecuted is his homestead acquired from his deceased father as may be
shown in Homestead Patent No. 63050 issued October 18, 1940. The Chief
of Police on cross-examination showed the accused copy of the decision
of the Court of First Instance of Misamis Occidental in Civil Case No.
1434 affecting the land in question. In view of this sworn testimony of
the defendant, his counsel asked leave to amend his motion now seeking
the dismissal of the charge; and upon continuance of the hearing, the
Court directed the trial of the case on its merits as shown in its
order dated June 12, 1958, which is now the subject of reconsideration
by urgent motion of the Assistant Provincial Fiscal, who presented in
evidence the decision of the Court of First Instance in aforecited
Civil Case No. 1434 adjudicating half of said land described in
Certificate of Title No. 397 to the defendant and his co-heirs
described in Certificate of Title No. 397 to the defendant and his
co-heirs upon reimbursement of a total sum of P3,150.00; which judgment
is still pending execution; or partition pending of the lands therein
adjudicated. In the face of these facts, we doubt very much the guilt
of the defendant who appears to have entered an improvident plea. * * *
(Order of 25 June 1958. Record of civil case No. 2119, page 51).

These reasons find support in the judgment rendered by the Court of
First Instance of Occidental Misamis on 27 July 1954 in civil case No.
1434, entitled Cesaria Jagonia et al., plaintiffs vs. Eduardo Jagonia
et al., defendants, where the appellant is one of the plaintiffs and
Exaltacion Jagonia de Amparado, the landlord of Josefa Lapora, the
offended party in criminal case No. 488, is one of the defendants
(Exibit B), ordering the therein defendants to deliver possession to
the therein plaintiff’s one-half of four parcels of land described in
O.C.T. No. 397 upon reimbursement to the former by the latter of the
sum of P3,150. Considering the reasons given by the respondent Justice
of the Peace Court, it cannot be said that it had gravely abused its
discretion in entering the orders complained of.

The appellee contends that the respondent Justice of the Peace Court
should not have entertained the appellant’s Motions for reconsideration
because they were not verified and not supported by affidavits. In
support of his contention he cites the cases of Fiscal of Manila vs. del Rosario 52 Phil., 20 and People vs.
Damiao, 56 Phil., 734, where the rule is that after a judgment of
conviction has been entered in a criminal case, the motion filed for
the purpose of substituting a plea of guilty by one of not guilty is
equivalent to a petition for reopening the case, and must not only be
verified but accompanied by an affidavit of merit. Such rule enunciated
in those two cases, decided on 25 August 1928 and 31 March 1932,
respectively, while the law on criminal procedure was General Orders
No. 58, is no longer controlling. The present rules on criminal
procedure are as provided for in the Rules of Court which took effect
on 1 July 1940, and do not require that a motion for new trial be
verified. And while the Rules of Court also require, as in the
supplanted law, that an affidavit of merit be attached to support a
motion for new trial based on newly discovered evidence, yet the defect
of lack of it in the appellant’s motions for reconsideration or
rehearing had been cured by the testimony under oath of the appellant
at the hearing of the motion for reconsideration on 25 June 1958. It
was the appellee himself who presented in evidence the judgment
(Exhibit B) which is the basis of the appellant’s motions for
reconsideration.

The judgment appealed from is reversed and the writ prayed for by the appellee is denied, without pronouncement as to costs.

Bengzon, C. J., Bautista Angelo, Labrador, Concepcion, Reyes, J. B. L., Barrera, Paredes, Dizon, and De Leon, JJ., concur.