THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF AND APPELLEE VS. SIM BEN, DEFENDANT AND APPELLANT.

Sim Ben appeals from a judgment of the Court of First Instance of Cebu
finding him guilty of violating paragraph 3, Article 201 of the Revised Penal
Code, for having exhibited cinematographic’ films of indecent or immoral scenes
inside his establishment, a restaurant which is a place open to public view in
the City of Cebu, On the sole. ground that he entered a plea of guilty to the
information without the aid of counsel.

The minutes of the session of the Court 31 January 1953 disclose that when
the case was called for trial, the appellant was informed by the Court of his
right to have counsel and asked if he desired the aid of one. He replied that he
did not. Then the Court asked, if he was agreeable to have the, information read
to him even without the assistance of counsel. His answer was in the
affirmative. The court interpreter translated ths information to him in the
local dialect and after the translation he entered a plea of guilty: He was
asked whether he knew that because of the plea of guilty the punishment as
provided for by law would be imposed upon him and he answered “Yes, sir.” The
Court asked him if he insisted’ on his pies of guilty and he answered “Yes,
sir.” At this juncture the fiscal recommended that a fine of P200 be imposed
upon the defendant. Thereupon, the Court sentenced him to suffer 6 months and 1
day of prision correccional and to pay the costs.

What transpired when the appellant was arraigned shows that his rights
were,fully protected and safeguarded. The Court complied with its duty when it
informed the appellant that it was his right to have the aid of counsel. And
before pronouncing the sentence the Court took pains to ascertain whether he was
aware of the consequencss of the plea he had entered. Notwithstanding this
precaution and warning, he waived his right to have the aid of counsel and
entered a plea of guilty to the information.

Appellant claims that he entered the plea of guilty because the fiscal
promised him that only a fine would be imposed. The recommendation of the fiscal
that only a fine be imposed upon the appellant seems to bear out his claim; but
such recommendation or one of leniency does not mean that the appellant is not
guilty of the crime charged against him. A promise to recommend a specific
penalty such as fine does not render the sentence void if the Court ignores the
recommendation and metes out to the defendant a penalty which is provided by
law.

The sentence appealed from is affirmed, with cost against the appellant.

Paras, C. J., Bengzon, Moniemayor, Reyes, A., Jugo, Bautista Angelo,
Labrador, Concepcion, and Reyes, J.B.L., JJ., concur.