Republic of the Philippines
SUPREME COURT
Manila
EN BANC
G.R. Nos. L-2391 and L-2392 February 22, 1950
THE PEOPLE OF PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee,
vs.
DIONISIO DIZON Y GUEVARRA ET AL., defendants.
HERNANDO DE CASTRO Y BURGOS, appellant.
Filemon R. Enrile for appellant.
Office of the Solicitor General Felix Bautista Angelo and Assistant Solicitor General Ruperto Kapunan, Jr., for appellee.
TUASON, J.:
In these two cases the accused pleaded guilty after withdrawing a previous plea of not guilty. Under the circumstances the only question to be determined, as both parties agree, concerns the correctness of the punishment imposed by the trial court; all the material facts alleged in the information are deemed admitted. The accused in each case was sentenced to an indeterminate penalty of from 4 months and 1 day of arresto mayor to 4 years, 2 months and 1 day of prision correccional, to indemnify the offended party in case No. 5575 in the amount of P35 and the offended party in case No. 5576 in the amount of P4, with the corresponding subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency, and to pay the costs.
The informations are as follows:
Criminal Case No. 5575
That on or about the 30th day of January, 1948, in the City of Manila, Philippines, the said accused, conspiring and confederating together and mutually helping one another, did then and there wilfully, unlawfully and feloniously, with intent of gain and by means of force and intimidation, to wit: by pointing a pistol at one Adriano Perlado and threatening to shoot him should he offer any resistance, or shout for help. took stole and carried away against the will of the said Adriano Perlado, a "Gruen" wrist watch, valued at P400, and 1 Parker "51" fountain pen, valued at P35, belonging to him, to his damage and prejudice in the total amount of P435, Philippine currency.
That the accused Hernando de Castro y Burgos is a recidivist, he having been previously convicted by final judgment of competent court for the crime of theft.
Criminal Case No. 5576
That on or about the 30th day of January, 1948, in the City of Manila, Philippines, the said accused, conspiring and confederating together and mutually helping one another did then and there wilfully, unlawfully and feloniously, with intent of gain and by means of force and intimidation, to wit: by pointing a pistol at one Bienvenido Rosete and threatening to shoot him should he offer any resistance or, shout for help, took, stole and carried away against the will of the said Bienvenido Rosete, 1 "Harman" wrist watch, valued at P80, and 1 "Universal" fountain pen, valued at P4, belonging to him, to his damage and prejudice in the total amount of P84, Philippine currency.
That the accused Hernando de Castro y Burgos is a recidivist, he having been previously convicted by final judgment of competent court for the crime of theft.
Counsel for the defendant believes that the appropriate penalty in each case is 4 months and 1 day of arresto mayor as minimum and 6 years, 1 month and 11 days of prision mayor as maximum.
The penalty prescribed by article 294, No. 5, of the Revised Penal Code as amended by section 6 of Revised Act No. 18 is prision correccional in its maximum period to prision mayor in its medium period. Since the aggravating circumstance of recidivism charged in the information is offset by appellant's plea of guilty, the prescribed penalty, following the provision of rules 1 and 4 of article 64 of the Revised Penal Code, should be imposed in its medium period, that is, from 6 years and 1 day to 8 years.
In accordance with section 1 of the Indeterminate Sentence law (Act No. 4103), as amended by Act No. 4225, the minimum penalty should not be less than 4 months and 1 day of arresto mayor nor more than 4 years and 2 months of prision correccional, and the maximum, not less than 6 years and 1 day nor more than 8 years of prision mayor. The minimum penalty imposed in each case is correct but the maximum of 4 years, 2 months and 1 day is below the range.
Wherefore, the appellant is sentenced in each case to 4 months and 1 day of arresto mayor as minimum and 6 years and 1 day of prision mayor maximum. There is an obvious typographical or inadvertent error in the judgment with regards to the indemnity in case No. 5576. Instead of P4, the figure should be P84, which is the true value of the articles robbed, according to the information.
With these modifications, the judgment appealed from is affirmed with costs of this instance against the appellant.
Moran, C.J., Ozaeta, Paras, Pablo, Padilla, Montemayor, Reyes and Torres, JJ., concur.
The Lawphil Project - Arellano Law Foundation
