Republic of the Philippines
SUPREME COURT
Manila
EN BANC
G.R. No. L-46609 July 22, 1939
THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee,
vs.
ALBINA MONTOYA (alias ALBINA M. RAMOS), defendant-appellant.
Angelica Belarmino for appellant.
Assistant Solicitor-General Bautista Angelo and Acting Assistant Attorney Bautista for appellee.
DIAZ, J.:
The question to be determined in this case, in view of the appeal taken by Albina Montoya (alias Albina M. Ramos), from the judgment rendered by the Court of First Instance of Manila, sentencing her to the penalty of one year of prision correccional, to indemnify the offended party in the sum of P1,012.50 and to pay the costs of the proceedings, is whether or not said penalty is in accordance with law, taking into consideration her confession of guilt and the value of the articles misappropriated.
The appellant was charged with the crime of estafa, it having been alleged in the information that she defrauded Tasiana R. Doningo of certain garments valued at P1,012.50 and that she is a recidivist, having been convicted of other four crimes of estafa prior to the date of her last crime.
The crime of estafa where the amount of the fraud is over P200 but does not exceed P6,000, is punished by the Revised Penal Code by arresto mayor in its maximum period to prision correccional in its minimum period, that is, from four months and one day to two years and four months. By offsetting the aggravating circumstance of recidivism alleged in the information, which should be considered established by the admission of the appellant herself (People vs. Siojo, G.R. No. 36835 [57 Phil., 1005]; People vs. Morales, G.R. No. 42925 [61 Phil., 1032]; People vs. Ilanan, G.R. No. 43818 [CA], March 5, 1936), against the mitigating circumstance of voluntary confession of her guilt, the penalty that should have been and ought to be imposed upon her must not be less than one year and one day nor more than one year and eight months of prision correccional. The appellant's case is perfectly within the scope of article 315, subsection 3, of the Revised Penal Code, where such penalty is prescribed for the crime committed by her.
Wherefore, taking into consideration the provisions of the Indeterminate Sentence Law and the rule of compensation established in article 63, subsection 4, of the Revised Penal Code, the penalty that must be imposed upon the appellant is from two months and one day to one year and one day. Consequently, such penalty should be imposed upon the appellant, and so modified, the appealed judgment is affirmed in all other respects, with costs to said appellant.
So ordered.
Avanceņa, C.J., Villa-Real, Imperial, Laurel, Concepcion, and Moran, JJ., concur.
The Lawphil Project - Arellano Law Foundation
