- Petitioner
- People
- Respondent
- Dimalanta
- Citation
- G.R. No. L-5196
- Court
- Supreme Court
- Decided
- November 13, 1952
Whether defendant should be allowed to change his plea from guilty to not guilty, proper indemnity amount, and application of Indeterminate Sentence…
Summary
This 1952 criminal case involved Plaridel Dimalanta who was charged with theft of electric current worth P333 from Manila Electric Company using a 'jumper' device. After pleading guilty, he was sentenced to six months and one day imprisonment plus indemnity. He subsequently attempted to withdraw his guilty plea claiming he was misled, but his counsel later withdrew this motion. On appeal, the Supreme Court affirmed the conviction, ruling that the withdrawal of the motion to change plea eliminated any basis for review of that issue. The Court also held that defendant was not entitled to Indeterminate Sentence Law benefits since his sentence was under one year, and found no error in the proceedings below.
Focus of dispute
Whether defendant should be allowed to change his plea from guilty to not guilty, proper indemnity amount, and application of Indeterminate Sentence Law
Legal facts
On January 4, 1950, Plaridel Dimalanta was charged with theft of electric current belonging to Manila Electric Company valued at P333, committed in April 1949 using a 'jumper'. He pleaded guilty upon arraignment and was immediately sentenced. On January 11, 1950, he filed a motion for appeal claiming excessive penalty. On January 19, 1950, through Atty. Ceniza, he filed an urgent motion to change his plea from guilty to not guilty, claiming he was misled about the consequences and could prove his innocence. The motion was later withdrawn by counsel on January 21, 1950.
Judgement and reasoning
Court of First Instance of Quezon City: Sentenced defendant to six months and one day of prision correccional, ordered indemnity of P333 to Manila Electric Company with subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency not exceeding one-third of principal penalty. Denied the motion to change plea after counsel withdrew it.
Supreme Court (SC): Affirmed the trial court's judgment. Held that since counsel withdrew the motion to change plea, there was no denial to review. Ruled that defendant was not entitled to Indeterminate Sentence Law benefits because penalty imposed did not exceed one year per Section 2 of Act No. 4103. Found no error in trial court proceedings and affirmed conviction with costs against appellant.