Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence

1. CRIMINAL LAW; PENALTIES. — The crime charged in the information to which the defendant pleaded guilty is that of robbery in an inhabited by an unarmed person, the value of the articles subject of the robbery exceeding P250, the penalty for which is prision mayor (article 299, Revised Penal Code). However, taking into consideration that the accused was only 15 years old when he committed the crime, the penalty next lower in degree should be imposed in its proper period (article 68, par. 2, Revised Penal Code), that is, prision correccional. The fact that he pleaded guilty on arraignment should be considered only in imposing the minimum period of said penalty, for the circumstance of minority (which together with the plea of guilty constitute two mitigating circumstances) has already been considered in lowering the penalty by one degree. The minimum period of prision correccional is 6 months and 1 day to two years and 4 months. For the purposes of the Indeterminate Sentence Law, the penalty of arresto mayor should be imposed in any of its degrees. Held: The correct penalty is an indeterminate one of from 6 months of arresto mayor to 2 years and 4 months of prision correccional, with indemnity, subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency, and costs.

Alfonso Pablo was accused before the Court of First Instance of Manila of robbery in an inhabited house, the value of the articles seized by him being placed at P440. Upon arraignment, waiving the assistance of counsel, he pleaded guilty. But, as he was a minor of 15 years at the time he committed the crime charged, the court, in its order of August 25, 1948, suspended further proceedings in accordance with article 80 of the Revised Penal Code and remanded him to the Philippine Training School for Boys until he shall have attained the age of majority or for a lesser period, depending upon the recommendation of the Social Welfare Commissioner.

On August 31, 1950, the Social Welfare Commissioner in her report to the Court stated that on September 20, 1948, Alfonso Pablo had escaped from the Philippine Training School for boys and had been at large notwithstanding the efforts made to apprehend him; that on August 24, 1950, it was discovered that he was in the New Bilibid Prisons at Muntinglupa, Rizal, serving the indeterminate sentence of four (4) years, two (2) months and one (1) day to six (6) years of prision correccional, imposed by Branch X of the Court of First Instance of Manila on two charges for robbery, Criminal Cases Nos. 10473, 10474; that as his age was stated to be 15 years in the order of the Court of August 25, 1948, his age must be then more than 17 years. It was, therefore, recommended by the Commissioner that the regular punishment be imposed upon him in the present case, Criminal Case No. 7569. Accordingly, the court, on September 18, 1950, pronounced judgment imposing upon him the indeterminate penalty of from six (6) months of arresto mayor to four (4) years and two (2) months of prision correccional, to indemnify the offended party in the sum of P200, with subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency, and to pay the costs. From this sentence the defendant appealed direct to this Court, for the reason that only the question of penalty is involved.

In his appeal, his counsel de oficio assigns only one error, to wit: "The Court a quo erred on the ground that the penalty imposed is not in accordance with law." clubjuris

Let us, therefore, analyze the circumstances of the present case and determine the proper penalty that should be imposed.

The crime charged in the information to which the defendant pleaded guilty is that of robbery in an inhabited house by an unarmed person, the value of the articles subject of the robbery exceeding P250, the penalty for which is prision mayor in accordance with article 299 of the Revised Penal Code. However, taking into consideration that Alfonso Pablo was only 15 years old when he committed the crime, the penalty next lower in degree should be imposed in its proper period, according to article 68, paragraph 2, Revised Penal Code, that is, prision correccional. The fact that he pleaded guilty on arraignment should be considered only in imposing the minimum period of said penalty, for the circumstance of minority (which together with the plea of guilty would constitute two mitigating circumstances) has already been considered in lowering the penalty by one degree. The minimum period of prision correccional is six (6) months and one (1) day to two (2) years and four (4) months. For the purposes of the Indeterminate Sentence Law the penalty of arresto mayor should be imposed in any of its degrees.

In view of the foregoing, the judgment appealed from is modified by imposing upon the defendant the indeterminate penalty of from six (6) months arresto mayor to two (2) years and four (4) months of prision correccional, affirming the sentence appealed from in all other respects. Without costs. So ordered.

Paras, C.J., Feria, Pablo, Bengzon, Padilla, Tuason, Reyes and Bautista Angelo, JJ., concur.