THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF AND APPELLEE, VS. DIONISIO DIZON Y GUEVARRA ET AL., DEFENDANTS.

In these two cases the accused pleaded guilty after withdrawing the 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 P35.00 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.

“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 willfully, unlawfully and
feloniously, with intent of gain and by means of force and intimidation, to wits
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 P35.00, belonging to him, to his damage
and prejudice in the total amount of P435.00, 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 P80.00, 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 Art. 294, No. 5» of the Revised Penal Code as amended by Section 6 of
Republic 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 Art.
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. 103), as amended by Act 4225, the minimum
penalty should not be less than h 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 as maximum. There is an
obvious typographical or inadvertent error in the judgment with regard 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, Bengzon, Padilla Montemayor,
Reyes, and Torres, JJ., concur.