G.R. No. 2019. November 20, 1905

We find no error in the proceedings in this case prejudicial to the
rights of the accused, and the evidence adduced at the trial sustains
the findings of the trial court, and establishes the guilt of the
appellants as charged in the information, except only in the case of
Gregorio Ramos, who was found guilty of the crime of brigandage as
defined and penalized in section 1 of Act No. 518 of the Philippine
Commission.

We think that there is reasonable doubt as to the guilt of the said
Ramos, and therefore, reversing the findings and sentence of the trial
court in so far as they apply to him, we find the said Gregorio Ramos
not guilty of the crime of brigandage with which he was charged and
convicted, and dismiss the information as to him with his proportionate
share of the costs de oficio in both instances.

The trial court, after finding the accused Ramon Castaneda guilty of
the crime of brigandage as defined and penalized in section 1 of Act
No. 518 of the Philippine Commission, erred in sentencing him to but
ten years’ imprisonment, instead of imposing the penalty prescribed by
said act-that is to say, not less than twenty years’ imprisonment.

The said Ramon Castaneda was a youth of but 17 years of age at the
time of the commission of the offense, and the trial court was
correctly of opinion that this fact should be taken into consideration
as an extenuating circumstance. But there is no provision in the said
act authorizing the imposition of any other penalty than that
prescribed therein, and aggravating or extenuating circumstances can
only be taken into consideration for the purpose of increasing or
decreasing the severity of the punishment to be imposed within the
limits prescribed in the law penalizing the offense.

We therefore further reverse the said sentence in so far as it
imposes the penalty of ten years’ imprisonment on the said Ramon
Castaneda, and, instead thereof, we sentence him to twenty years
imprisonment, the minimum penalty authorized by law.

With these modifications, reversals, and corrections, the sentence
appealed from aught to be, and is hereby, affirmed with a proportionate
part of the costs of this appeal against the appellants, except in the
case of the said Gregorio Ramos, whose proportionate part of the costs
have been declared de oficio. So ordered.

Arellano, C. J., Torres, Mapa, Johnson, and Willard, JJ., concur.