Title
Paredes vs. Borja
Case
G.R. No. L-15559
Decision Date
Nov 29, 1961
Cresencio Catalan pleaded guilty to malicious mischief but later claimed land ownership, leading to a withdrawn plea. Courts debated discretion and motion validity; Supreme Court upheld withdrawal, citing evidence and procedural rules.

Case Summary (G.R. No. L-17074)

Factual Background

On July 9, 1958, a certiorari petition was filed against Justice Borja and Catalan regarding Criminal Case No. 488. The complaint, which alleged malicious mischief due to the destruction of young corn plants, was lodged on June 3, 1958. Catalan was arraigned on June 6, 1958, where he entered a plea of guilty and was sentenced to ten days of imprisonment alongside an order to pay a fine of P10. However, Catalan subsequently sought to withdraw his guilty plea, claiming that the imposed penalty was excessively severe and asserting a legitimate ownership of the land in dispute.

Motion for Reconsideration

Catalan initially submitted a motion for reconsideration on June 6, 1958, expressing dissatisfaction with his sentence. His subsequent motion on June 10, 1958, highlighted ongoing civil litigation concerning ownership of the land. He requested the court to vacate the conviction and grant him the opportunity to enter a plea of not guilty. This was followed by a series of motions and orders, including an order by the Justice of the Peace Court on June 12, 1958, that set aside the earlier conviction and allowed a not guilty plea.

The Petitioner’s Arguments

Paredes, the Assistant Provincial Fiscal, opposed the granting of Catalan’s motions for reconsideration, raising procedural concerns related to the absence of verification and affidavits of merit in Catalan's motions. Paredes contended that the Justice of the Peace Court had acted outside its jurisdiction and seriously abused its discretion by allowing a guilty plea to be withdrawn without following proper procedure.

Respondent’s Defense

In response to the petition, the respondents asserted that the Justice of the Peace Court acted within its discretion. They maintained that the respondent had presented sufficient grounds to withdraw his guilty plea, and that the alleged deficiencies in the motions for reconsideration were procedural in nature and not prejudicial to the prosecution.

Court’s Decision

On December 29, 1958, the Court of First Instance declared the actions of the Justice of the Peace Court as irregular and unwarranted, nullifying its orders regarding the motions to withdraw the guilty plea and dismissing the charges. The court found that the plea had been improvidently entered and deemed that the issues raised warranted a reconsideration of the case.

Legal Principles Applied

The court emphasized that under the rules of court, particularly Section 6, Rule 114, a defendant may withdraw a guilty plea

...continue reading

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur helps you analyze cases smarter to comprehend faster—building context before diving into full texts.