G.R. No. L-15559 - Paredes vs. Borja

On July 9, 1958, the Assistant Provincial Fiscal of Occidental Misamis (petitioner/appellee) filed a petition for certiorari with a preliminary injunction in the Court of First Instance of Occidental Misamis.
The petition was directed against Felix V. Borja, Justice of the Peace of Bonifacio, and Cresencio Catalan, respondents/appellants, alleging irregularities in criminal proceedings.

On June 2, 1958, the chief of police subscribed a complaint charging respondent Cresencio Catalan with malicious mischief for allegedly pulling and destroying corn plants belonging to Josefa Lapora, a tenant of Exaltacion Jagonia de Amparado.
On June 3, 1958, an affidavit was sworn, and the complaint was filed in the Justice of the Peace Court under criminal case No. 488 (with pertinent exhibits attached).

On June 6, 1958, during arraignment, the accused—assisted by counsel de oficio—entered a plea of guilty.
The Justice of the Peace Court sentenced him to:

On the same day, the respondent filed a motion for reconsideration, contending that the penalty of imprisonment was too severe under Article 329, paragraph 3 of the Revised Penal Code, and asserting that his liability, if any, was merely civil due to an asserted legitimate homestead claim evidenced by a pending civil case (Civil Case No. 1434) concerning a parcel of land described in Certificate of Title No. 397.

On June 10, 1958, the respondent filed an amended motion for reconsideration, reinforcing his claim of a valid homestead interest so that his liability would be civil rather than criminal.
Also on June 10, 1958, the Justice of the Peace Court set aside its earlier judgment of June 6, 1958, ordered that a plea of not guilty be entered in lieu of the plea of guilty, and scheduled the case for trial on June 18, 1958.
On June 16, 1958, the respondent filed a motion for postponement of the hearing regarding the amended motion for reconsideration.
On June 25, 1958, the petitioner filed an urgent motion for reconsideration challenging:

The Justice of the Peace Court’s order of June 12, 1958, setting aside the original judgment.
The alleged ex parte granting of the respondent’s motions for reconsideration, which were argued to be unverified and unsupported by affidavits of merit.

On the same day (June 25, 1958), in open court, the respondent Justice of the Peace denied the petitioner’s motion.
Additional motions were filed by the petitioner on July 2 and July 3, 1958, but were likewise denied by the respondent court.

On July 10, 1958, the Court of First Instance ordered the respondent Justice of the Peace Court to desist from further proceedings in criminal case No. 488 and directed the respondents to answer the petition within five days.
The respondents filed their answer on July 15, 1958, defending:

The propriety of allowing the withdrawal of the guilty plea in view of the defendant’s good defense and valid homestead claim.
That any defects in the motion for reconsideration (lack of verification or affidavit) were cured by the defendant’s sworn testimony during the hearing.

On July 23, 1958, the petitioner filed a reply, contending that the respondents were estopped from claiming that the plea was improvidently entered, citing prior jurisprudence.
Subsequently, on August 23, 1958, the court directed the petitioner to file a motion to decide the case on the pleadings, which was done on August 29, 1958.
On December 29, 1958, the Court rendered judgment declaring:

The acts of the respondent Justice of the Peace Court as “very irregular and suspicious.”
The orders of June 12, June 25, and July 3, 1958, setting aside the original judgment and altering the plea, were null and void.
An order directing the respondent court to desist from further proceedings in criminal case No. 488 and to execute the judgment of June 6, 1958.

On February 9–14, 1959, the respondents filed motions for reconsideration along with supporting memoranda; these were denied on March 18, 1959.
A second motion for reconsideration was filed on April 18, 1959, but on May 9, 1959, the respondents filed a notice of appeal which led to the abandonment of this motion.
The legal basis for allowing a plea withdrawal or substitution before a judgment becomes final was discussed pursuant to Section 6, Rule 114. This provision empowers the court to set aside a judgment rendered on a plea of guilty and permit the entry of a plea of not guilty (or a plea of guilty to a lesser offense) at its discretion.
The petitioner’s argument referenced prior cases (Fiscal of Manila vs. del Rosario and People vs. Damiao) concerning the need for verified motions accompanied by affidavits in motions for a new trial; however, the court noted that the current Rules of Court (effective July 1, 1940) do not impose such a requirement in the same manner.

Setting aside the judgment of conviction rendered on June 6, 1958.
Ordering the substitution of the plea of guilty with a plea of not guilty despite the motions for reconsideration being unverified and lacking supporting affidavits.

Whether the petitioner’s contention that the absence of verification and affidavit of merit in the respondent’s motions for reconsideration renders the orders null and void is sustainable under the current Rules of Court.

Whether the issuance of a writ of preliminary injunction—ordering the respondent court to desist from further proceedings in criminal case No. 488—was warranted in view of the absence of any plain, speedy, and adequate remedy at the lower court level.

Whether the cited case law (Fiscal of Manila vs. del Rosario and People vs. Damiao), which required verified motions with affidavits for reopening a case after a plea of guilty, remains controlling in light of the modernized Rules of Court.