THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS, PLAINTIFF AND APPELLEE, VS. MARCELINO VALENCIA, MELCHOR QUIJANO, AND SOCORRO QUIJANO, DEFENDANTS. MARCELINO VALENCIA AND SOCORRO QUIJANO, A…

Appellants
Marcelino Valencia and Socorro Quijano, together with Melchor Quijano,
were prosecuted in the Court of First Instance of Pampanga under the
following information:

“Que en o hacia el
dia 21 de marzo de 1933, en el Municipio de Mabalacat, Provincia de
Pampanga, Islas Filipinas, los referidos acusados, Marcelino Valencia,
Melchor Quijano y Socorro Quijano, confabulandose entre si, de comun
acuerdo, ayudandose mutuamente y en connivencia con los fabricantes de
billetes de banco falsos, quienes hasta ahora no han sido
identificados, voluntaria, ilegal y criminalmente, expendieron e
hicieron pasar un billete de banco falsificado a sabiendas de que lo
era, en la forma y manera siguiente: se presentaron en la tienda de la
Sra. Maria Morales y compraron efectos de su tienda, cuyo valor es de
“P0.45 y para pagarlos entregaron un billete de banco falsificado de
P10, No. D261487D del Banco de las Islas Filipinas, haciendolo pasar
como legitimo y expedido por el Banco de las Islas Filipinas, cuando
que a ellos les constaba y les consta positivamente de que era y es
falsificado recibiendo de la citada Sra. Maria Morales como cambio la
cantidad de P9.55.”

Upon arraignment,
Marcelino Valencia pleaded guilty, while his two codefendants pleaded
not guilty. After due trial, Melchor Quijano was acquitted. Marcelino
Valencia was found guilty of a violation of article 166, of the Revised
Penal Code, and sentenced to suffer ten years, eight months and one day
of prision mayor, with the accessories of the law, to pay a
fine of P100, with subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency, and
to pay one-third of the costs. Socorro Quijano was found guilty of a
violation of article 168 of the Revised Penal Code, and sentenced to
four years, two months and one day of prision correccional, with the accessories of the law, and to pay one-third of the costs.

The
evidence shows that on the morning of March 21, 1933, appellants
stopped their car in front of a store belonging to Maria Morales and
bought some cigarettes and corn beef, and gave the seller a ten-peso
bill. After receiving the change in the sum of P9.55, they hurriedly
left the store. This aroused the suspicion of the store owner who, upon
examining the bill, found it to be a counterfeit. Whereupon her brother
Pedro Morales went in pursuit of appellants. Meanwhile, appellants went
to another store belonging to Eustaquia Sunga and bought cigars and
some cans of salmon, giving, in payment, another ten-peso counterfeit
bill. Upon receiving the change, they again hurriedly departed. They
were, however, overtaken by Pedro Morales and, at his instance, were
detained by the authorities.

On this appeal, two questions
are raised, one relates to the qualification of the crime committed by
Marcelino, while the other, to the sufficiency of evidence to sustain
the conviction of Socorro.

As to the first question, counsel
contends that article 168 of the Revised Penal Code should be applied,
instead of article 166, alleging that no evidence was presented that
appellant Marcelino was in connivance with the counterfeiters or
forgers when he passed the counterfeit bills. This contention is
groundless, since, by his plea of guilty, Marcelino admitted all the
material allegations of the information, including that of connivance
with the authors of the forgery, which characterizes the crime defined
by article 166 of the Revised Penal Code. (U. S. vs. Burlado, 42 Phil., 72, 74; U. S. vs. Barba, 29 Phil., 206; U. S. vs.
Tamarra, 21 Phil., 143.) His testimony at the trial of, and as witness
for, his co-appellant, could not affect the legal consequences of his
plea.

As to the second question, counsel contends that
Socorro did not know anything about the counterfeit bills, but an
examination of the evidence presented in this case convinces us to the
contrary, and so we are not disposed to interfere with the finding of
the trial court on this point.

The crime committed by
Marcelino Valencia falls within the purview of article 166, case 2, of
the Revised Penal Code. The penalty prescribed is prision mayor
in its maximum degree and a fine not to exceed P5,000. There being
present the mitigating circumstance of plea of guilty, without any
aggravating circumstance to offset it, the penalty should be imposed in
its minimum period. Under the provisions of Act No, 4103 of the
Philippine Legislature, otherwise known as the Indeterminate Sentence
Law, he should be sentenced to a term of imprisonment the minimum of
which shall not be less than the minimum of the penalty next lower in
degree to that prescribed by the Revised Penal Code, and the maximum
shall be that which may be properly imposed, in view of the attending
circumstances. Consequently, the appellant Marcelino Valencia is hereby
sentenced to suffer a term of imprisonment of from eight years and one
day to ten years and eight months. The fine imposed by the lower court
should be without any subsidiary imprisonment pursuant to article 39,
rule 3, of the Revised Penal Code.

The crime committed by Socorro Quijano falls under article 168 of the Revised Penal Code, and the penalty prescribed is prision mayor
in its medium degree, which should be applied in its medium period, in
the absence of any mitigating or aggravating circumstance in the
commission of the crime. Pursuant to the provisions of said Act No.
4103, she is hereby sentenced to suffer a term of imprisonment of from
six years and one day to nine years and four months. She is also
sentenced to pay a fine of P100, without any subsidiary imprisonment.
(Article 168, in relation with article 166, case 2, and article 39,
rule 3, of the Revised Penal Code.)

Modified as above indicated, the judgment is affirmed with costs against the appellants. So ordered.

Street, Vickers, Butte, and Diaz, JJ., concur.