Republic of the Philippines
SUPREME COURT
Manila
EN BANC
G.R. No. L-11813 October 6, 1916
THE UNITED STATES, plaintiff-appellee,
vs.
HIGINO SANTIAGO, defendant-appellant.
J.E. Blanco for appellant.
Attorney-General Avanceña for appellee.
MORELAND, J.:
The appeal in this case must be declared successful. The appellant was convicted of having inflicted minor injuries on one Federico Manalad, by cutting him in the face with a knife, and sentenced to six months of arresto mayor, to indemnify Manalad in the sum of P50, to suffer subsidiary imprisonment in case of neglect to pay, and to pay the costs of the trial. The information charges as follows:
That the said accused, on or about the 28th day of January, 1916, in the municipality of Malolos, Province of Bulacan, P. I., voluntarily and criminally and without justification attacked Federico Manalad with a bolo, producing two wounds in the face which required ten days to be cured and the attendance of a physician during that period; and prevented him from following his usual occupation during the same number of days, in violation of law.
The accused pleaded guilty to the charge framed by this information and the court sentenced him as heretofore stated.
On this appeal counsel deals exclusively with the penalty imposed, alleging that it is illegal and that the indemnity is excessive.
It will be observed that the penalty imposed by the trial court is in its maximum degree. It is, of course, unquestioned law that, under that system of penalties established by the Penal Code, a penalty cannot legally be imposed in its maximum degree without the presence of one or more aggravating circumstances; and that an aggravating circumstance cannot be held to be present in a case unless its existence is admitted by the accused or has been proved by the prosecution beyond a reasonable doubt. In the case before us no evidence was taken; and a mere glance at the information discloses that it contains no allegation with reference to the circumstances under which the crime was committed. It is settled doctrine that a plea of guilty admits only the material facts alleged in the information. Such being the law it is clear that, when the accused pleaded guilty to the information under which he was brought to trial, his plea did not admit the existence of an aggravating circumstance as none was alleged; and that the trial court in sentencing him, was not authorized by law to take into consideration an aggravating circumstance, and, as a result, impose the penalty in its maximum degree. The penalty should have been in the medium degree, namely, two months and one day of arresto mayor. lawphil.net
The argument is similar with respect to the indemnity. There is no allegation in the information showing Manalad's occupation or profession or the wages or salary he was earning at the time of the assault. Nor is there any allegation as to the amount expended in being cured of his injuries. There can be, then , no recovery as there is no evidence in the record upon which such recovery can be based.
The sentence of the trial court is hereby modified and the accused is sentenced to two months and one day of arresto mayor and to pay the costs of the trial. No costs in this instance. So ordered.
Torres, Carson, Trent and Araullo, JJ., concur.
Johnson, J., took no part.
The Lawphil Project - Arellano Law Foundation
