G.R. No. L-1217 - People vs. Nazario y Enriquez

The defendant, Gerardo Nazario y Enriquez, was originally charged in the Municipal Court of Manila with qualified theft.
At trial, he was convicted of simple theft instead of the charged qualified theft.
The sentence imposed was four months and one day of arresto mayor, in addition to the payment of court costs.

On appeal to the Court of First Instance of Manila, the defendant initially entered a plea of not guilty.
Subsequently, he withdrew his not guilty plea and pleaded guilty to the offense of simple theft.
After this change, the Court of First Instance re-imposed the same penalty as rendered by the Municipal Court.
A notice of appeal had already been filed prior to the filing of a subsequent motion by the defendant.

The defendant filed a motion requesting that the judgment be set aside, that his plea of guilty be withdrawn and substituted with a plea of not guilty, and that a new trial be conducted.
His motion was supported by an allegation that key prosecution witnesses had already departed for the United States, implying that the withdrawal of his plea was made on a colorable afterthought basis.
Attached to the motion was an affidavit by Cayetano Suarez, presented as newly discovered evidence, which included conclusions regarding the defendant’s innocence.
The lower court, however, took no action on the motion for withdrawal, leaving the plea of guilty intact.

If a judgment of conviction has been entered on a plea of guilty and the judgment has not become final, the court may set aside the judgment and allow a plea of not guilty or, with the consent of the fiscal, permit a plea of guilty of a lesser offense necessarily included in the charge.

The discretion granted by this rule was exercised by the Court of First Instance, which chose not to allow the withdrawal of the plea, considering the overall circumstances of the case.

The defendant argued that his plea of guilty, made upon appeal, should be considered as a mitigating circumstance.
Citing the newly discovered evidence (the affidavit by Suarez) and his change of plea, he contended the lower court erred in not taking into account the potential mitigating effect of his voluntary confession.
The Government and established case law opposed this view, maintaining that a plea of guilty entered on appeal could not be treated as a mitigating circumstance.

Whether the Court of First Instance erred in exercising its discretionary power by refusing to set aside the judgment and allowing the defendant to withdraw his plea of guilty after a notice of appeal had been filed.
Whether the defendant’s plea of guilty made on appeal should be regarded as a mitigating circumstance under Article 13, No. 7 of the Revised Penal Code.
Whether the withdrawal of a plea of guilty, especially after appellate proceedings had commenced, can be justified by newly discovered evidence and allegations regarding the absence of key prosecution witnesses.
Whether the procedural inaction by the lower court in addressing the motion to withdraw the plea constitutes an error that warrants remand for proper exercise of discretion under Section 6 of Rule 114.