THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF AND APPELLEE, VS. ERNESTO SEBASTIAN Y PANGILINAN (ALIAS ERNING) AND MAURO PANGILINAN Y SALTA, DEFENDANTS. MAURO PANGILINAN Y SALTA, APPE…

This is an appeal from a judgment of the Court of First Instance of Manila,
convicting appellant of robbery.

Appellant was, together with his co-accused in the court below, charged with
robbery in an inhabited house, committed, in the language of the information, as
follows:

“That on or about the 5th day of September, 1948, in the City of Manila,
Philippines, the said accused conspiring and confederating together and helping
each other, and at night time purposesly sought to better accomplish their ends,
did then and there wilfully, unlawfully and feloniously enter house No. 179
Simon Street, in said City, inhabited by Mr. and Mrs. Jose Rivera and by means
of threat and intimidation, to wit: by pointing a .45 caliber pistol at the said
Mr. and Mrs. Jose Rivera and that they will be shot if they will make a false
move, and with intent of gain and without the consent of the owner thereof,
took, stole and carried away cash money amounting to P28, one palm beach
trousers, one knitted skipper color green, one white polo shirt, two pairs of
men’s shoes, one white and other than, one gold lay’s ring with one diamond, two
electric flat irons (GE) and one eversharp fountain pen, all valued at P537.30,
belonging to the said Mr. and Mrs. Jose Rivera, to the damage and prejudice of
the said owner in the said amount of P537.30, Philippine currency.

“Contrary to law.”

Upon arraignment, appellant pleaded not guilty to the above information, but
he changed the plea to that of guilty after hearing the testimony of the
offended party, whereupon the lower court convicted him of robbery under Article
299 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended by Section 7, Republic Act No. 18, and
taking into consideration his plea of guilty, sentenced him to an indeterminate
penalty of 6 years and 1 day of prision mayor, as minimum, to 12 years
and 1 day of reclusion temporal, as maximum, and pay indemnity and
costs.

The appeal raises only a question of law, and we agree with both the
Solicitor General and the attorney de oficio that the lower court erred
in convicting appellant under Article 299 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended,
and in applying to him the penalty therein provided. Aside from the fact that
the information to which appellant pleaded guilty does not allege that the
robbery was committed under any of the circumstances enumerated in said article,
such as entering the house through an opening not intended for entrance or
egress, the breaking of doors, etc., it is now settled that where robbery,
though committed in an inhabited house, is characterized by intimidation, this
factor “supplies the controlling qualification,” so that the law to apply is
Article 294 and not Article 299 of the Revised Penal Code. This is on the theory
that “robbery which is characterized by violence or intimidation against the
person is evidently graver than ordinary robbery committed by force upon things,
because where violence or intimidation against the person is present there is
greater disturbance of the order of society and the security of the individual.”
(U.S. vs. Turla, 33 Phil. 346; People vs. Baluyot, 40 Phil.
S9.) And this view is followed even where, as in the present case, the penalty
to be applied under Article 294 is lighter than that which would result from the
application of Article 299. (See last case cited.) In accordance with
this view, appellant should have been declared guilty of robbery under paragraph
5 of Article 294 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended by Republic Act No. 18,
since the charge to which he pleaded guilty alleges robbery through intimidation
of persons. His criminal liability is aggravated by the circumstances of
nocturnity and dwelling and not mitigated by his plea of guilty, which was not
entered until after the offended party had already testified. (Art. 13, No. 7,
Rev. Penal Code; People vs. Co Chang, 60 Phil. 293; People vs.
De la Cruz, 63 Phil. 874; People vs. Herminio, 64 Phil. 403; People
vs. Bawasanta, 64 Phil. 409.)

The penalty prescribed for the offense committed is prision
correccional in its maximum period to prision mayor in its medium
period, which, because of the presence of two aggravating circumstances, should
be applied in its maximum degree, or from 8 years and 21 days to 10 years of
prision mayor. Applying the Indeterminate Sentence Law, appellant should be
sentenced to an indeterminate penalty of not less than 4 months and 1 day of
arresto mayor, nor more than 4 years and 2 months of prision
correccional, as minimum, and not less than 8 years and 21 days nor more
than 10 years of prision mayor, as maximum.

Wherefore, modifying the judgment appealed from in so far as appellant is
concerned, he is hereby declared guilty of robbery under paragraph 5 of Article
294 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended, and sen-fenced to an indeterminate
penalty of 4 years and 2 months of prision correccional, as minimum, to
10 years of prision mayor, as maximum; jointly and severally with his
co-accused to indemnify the offended party in the sum of P39.50; and to pay
proportionate costs.

Moran, C. J., Ozaeta, Pablo, Bengzon, Padilla, Tuason, Montemayor,
and Torres, JJ., concur.
Paras, and Feria, JJ., no part.