THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF AND APPELLEE, VS. SALVADOR BERNARDINO Y FLORES, DEFENDANT AND APPELLANT.

Charged with robbery in an inhabited house, without arms, and
convicted thereof, Salvador Bernardino y Flores was sentenced to an
indeterminate penalty of from four months and one day of arresto mayor to two years, four months and one day of prision correccional,
with the accessory penalties, to indemnify Victorino de Dios in the sum
of P109.97, to suffer the corresponding subsidiary imprisonment in case
of insolvency, and to pay the costs. Not agreeing to the judgment, said
accused appealed to this court for the review of his case.

After examining the record, this court finds that the appellant,
immediately after arraignment, entered a plea of guilty of the crime
charged in the information, which is no other than that of robbery in
an inhabited house, without arms, during which the value of the
property taken was only P109.97, defined and punished in article 299,
paragraph (a), subsection 2, having forced open padlocks or locks and
door, for which the law prescribes the penalty of prision correccional
in its medium period (from two years, four months and one day to four
years and two months), which is the minimum of prision correccional in its medium period to prision mayor
in its minimum period, the latter being the penalty next lower than
that prescribed in the first paragraph of said article (article 299
[a], No. 2, last paragraph),

Inasmuch as the aggravating circumstances of recidivism and
nighttime allegedin the information, and not denied, but, on the
contrary, were admitted implicitly by the appellant by virtue of his
voluntary confession of guilt, should be taken into consideration
against him (People vs. Masonson [1936], 35 Off. Gaz., 1589; People vs. Alcantara, G. R. No. 39505, September 20, 1933 [58 Phil., 950]; U. S. vs.
Burlado, 42 Phil., 72; and many other cases), the penalty which should
have been and should be imposed upon him as his confession in question
is insufficient to offset said two aggravating circumstances, is the
maximum period of prision correccional in its medium period,
or three years, six months and twenty-one days. In view of the
foregoing and of the provisions of the Indeterminate Sentence Law, Act
No. 4103, as amended by Act No. 4225, the minimum penalty which should
also be imposed upon him is prision correccional in its minimum period, or from six months and one day to two years and four months (People vs. Haloot, G. R. No. 45490, September 15, 1937).

For the foregoing, the judgment appealed from is hereby modified in the
sense of imposing upon the appellant an indeterminate penalty of from
six months and one day to three years, six months and twenty-one days
of prision correccional, affirming it in all other respects, with costs to the appellant. So ordered.

Avancena, C. J., Abad Santos, Imperial, Laurel, and Concepcion, JJ., concur.

VILLA-REAL, J., dissenting in part:

I agree to the majority opinion in so far as it imposes upon the
appellant the maximum penalty of three years, six months and twenty one
days; but I do not agree thereto in so far as it imposes the minimum
penalty of six months and me day upon him. This minimum penalty should
be taken from arresto mayor in its maximum period to prision correccional in its minimum period, because it is the penalty next lower than prision correccional in its medium and maximum periods, for reasons analogous to that stated by me in my dissenting opinion in the case of People vs. Haloot, G. R. No. 45490, promulgated on September 15, 1937.