THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF AND APPELLEE, VS. POL, DEFENDANT AND APPELLANT.

Dy Pol was charged in the Court of First
Instance of Iloilo with having committed the crime of falsification of
a public document by virtue of an information alleging: That on or
about July 23, 1936, in the municipality of Iloilo, Province of Iloilo,
and within the jurisdiction of said court, the said accused, being the
manager of the commercial establishment known.as “Mambucal” belonging
to Chua We, voluntarily and unlawfully appeared before notary public
Pedro Davila and, pretending to be Chua We, executed and ratified a
deed selling said commercial establishment to Dy Pol, signing it as
Chua We; thereby making false manifestations in the statement of facts
and making it appear that Chua We had sold him said commercial
establishment, when in fact and as the accused well knew, Chua We never
appeared before the notary public, executed the document or sold the
commercial establishment “Mambucai”; and as a consequence thereof the
accused succeeded in appropriating, to his own benefit, articles and
merchandise from the establishment “Mambucai” in the amount of P438.52,
to the damage and prejudice of Chua We.

The accused pleaded guilty upon arraignment and the court
forthwith sentenced him to an indeterminate penalty of from four months
and one day of arresto mayor to two years, four months and one day of prision correctional,
to indemnify the offended party in the sum of P438, with subsidiary
imprisonment in case of insolvency, and to pay the costs. The accused
appealed therefrom and in this instance his attorney insists solely
upon the reduction of the penalty imposed on the ground that the
mitigating circumstances of plea of guilty and lack of irreparable
material damage to the offended party were present in the commission of
the crime.

The plea of guilty spontaneously entered by the accused prior to
the presentation of the evidence for the prosecution constitutes
mitigating circumstance under article 13, subsection 7, of the Revised
Penal Code, and the court took it into consideration in imposing the
indeterminate penalty prescribed in its minimum periods. The other
mitigating circumstance invoked by the appellant, which is that the
crime committed by the accused has caused no irreparable material
damage to the offended party, is not recognize^ by the Revised Penal
Code. Neither is it among those which may be considered as similar in
nature and analogous to those expressly recognized, in accordance with
article 13, subsection 10, and therefore it cannot correctly be taken
into consideration.

The crime confessed by the accused is punished by article 172 of the Revised Penal Code with prision correctional
in its medium and maximum periods and a fine of not more than P5,000.
Under the Indeterminate Sentence Law, Act No. 4103, as amended by Act
No. 4225, the indeterminate sentence that should be imposed is from
four months and one day of arresto mayor to two years, four months and one day of prision correctional, a fine of P200, the indemnity, with the corresponding subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency of both sums, with costs.

Wherefore, modifying the appealed judgment, the accused-appellant
is sentenced to the penalty of from four months and one day of arresto mayor to two years, four months and one day of prision correctional,
to pay a fine of P200, to indemnify the offended party in the sum of
P438.52, with the corresponding subsidiary imprisonment in case of
insolvency of both sums, and to pay the costs of both instances. So
ordered.

Avancena, C. J., Villa-Real, Abad Santos, Diaz, Laurel, and Concepcion, JJ., concur.