GR L 11000; (January, 1958) (Digest)
G.R. No. L-11000; January 21, 1958
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. ALICIA RAPIRAP, defendant-appellant.
FACTS
The appellant, Alicia Rapirap, was charged with and convicted by the Municipal Court of Naga City of the crime of less serious physical injuries and sentenced to pay a fine of P25.00. She appealed to the Court of First Instance of Camarines Sur. During the trial in the Court of First Instance, the accused, with her counsel, changed her plea from not guilty to guilty. After her plea of guilty, her counsel asked the court to impose a penalty of a P20.00 fine, which the court denied. Following this denial, the appellant asked for permission to withdraw her appeal, which the court also denied. The Court of First Instance then sentenced her to eleven days of arresto menor, to pay P200.00 in damages to the offended party, and to pay the costs.
ISSUE
Whether or not the refusal of the lower court to permit the withdrawal of the appeal was proper under the circumstances.
RULING
Yes, the refusal was proper. First, under Section 21, Rule 118 of the Rules of Court, the withdrawal of an appeal must be made upon motion before the trial of the case on appeal, not during or after it. A plea of guilty constitutes the trial itself, as it is an admission of guilt and the material facts alleged, removing the necessity for further evidence and leaving the court with no alternative but to impose the penalty prescribed by law. Second, the withdrawal of an appeal rests within the sound discretion of the court. The court did not abuse its discretion; it was soundly exercised. The motion to withdraw was made only after the court indicated it would impose a higher penalty by denying the counsel’s recommendation for a P20.00 fine. Permitting withdrawal under such circumstances would allow parties to trifle with judicial procedure by withdrawing appeals only after becoming certain of an adverse judgment. The plea of guilty, entered only at the Court of First Instance, was rightfully not considered a mitigating circumstance. The judgment appealed from was affirmed.