G.R. No. 111097 - Magtajas vs. Pryce Properties Corp., Inc.

The appellant, Sim Ben, owned and operated a restaurant in the City of Cebu, which is considered a place open to public view.
Sim Ben was charged with violating paragraph 3, Article 201 of the Revised Penal Code for exhibiting cinematographic films containing indecent or immoral scenes inside his establishment.

During the trial on January 31, 1953, the Court of First Instance of Cebu properly informed the appellant of his right to have the aid of counsel.
The Court asked the appellant if he wished to secure counsel; he declined the offer.
The Court then inquired if he was amenable to have the information read to him without counsel, to which he consented.
An interpreter translated the information into the local dialect, ensuring that the appellant comprehended the charges against him before he proceeded to plead guilty.

After the translation, Sim Ben confirmed his understanding of the proceedings and the potential consequences by answering affirmatively when asked if he was aware that, as a result of his plea of guilty, the law would impose the corresponding punishment.
The Court made sure that he recognized the implications of his plea by asking if he insisted on plead guilty, receiving another affirmative response.

The fiscal recommended that a fine of P200 be imposed upon the appellant, indicating a perspective of leniency.
However, the Court proceeded to sentence him to 6 months and 1 day of prision correccional and imposed the payment of costs.
The factual record indicates that all relevant safeguards were observed and that the appellant’s rights were adequately protected throughout the trial, including clear communication and confirmation of his decision to forgo counsel.

Whether the appellant’s waiver of his right to have the aid of counsel was both voluntary and informed.
Whether the translation and subsequent inquiries by the Court sufficed to ensure that he fully understood the repercussions of pleading guilty.

Whether the fiscal’s recommendation to impose only a fine (P200) constituted an inducement or undue influence on the appellant’s decision to plead guilty.
Whether the Court’s decision to impose a penalty provided by law, differing from the fiscal’s recommendation, was proper and within its judicial discretion.

Whether the plea of guilty, entered without representation but with proper advisement, stands as a valid waiver of rights.
Whether a judicial sentence exceeding the fiscal’s leniency recommendation is legally acceptable when valid procedural safeguards were in place.