G.R No.

L-8320, December 20, 1995

People of the Philippines v. Sim Ben

FACTS: The appellant was found guilty by the Court of First Instance of Cebu for violating
paragraph 3, Article 201 of the Revised Penal Code, for exhibiting cinematographic films of
indecent or immoral scenes inside his establishment, a restaurant which is a place open to
public view, on the sole ground that he entered a plea of guilty to the information without the
aid of legal counsel. The court informed the appellant of his right to have a counsel, which the
appellant rejected. The court asked him if he insisted on his plea of guilty and answered Yes,
sir. It is shown that the Court fully complied with its duty when it informed the appellant of his
right. The appellant showed that he is fully aware of the consequences of the plea he entered,
waiving his right to have the aid of counsel and entered plea of guilty. However, appellant
claimed that he only entered the plea of guilty because the fiscal promised him that only a fine
would be imposed.

ISSUE: Whether or not the appellants plea of guilty is violative of Rule 138, section 34 of the
Rules of Court.

HELD: No. The Court hasnt been negligent on its duty to inform the appellant of his right to
have a counsel and to make sure that he is fully aware of the consequences of the plea of guilty
which will imposed the punishment provided for by law upon him if he pleaded guilty.
Notwithstanding the Courts precaution and warning, the appellant insistently waived his right
to have the aid of legal counsel and entered a plea of guilty to the information. The
recommendation of the fiscal that only a fine be imposed upon the appellant seems to bear out
his claim; but such recommendation or one of leniency does not mean that the appellant is not
guilty of the crime charged against him. A promise to recommend a specific penalty such as fine
does not render the sentence void if the Court ignores the recommendation and metes out to
the defendant a penalty which is provided by law.