EN BANC
[G.R. No. L-4217. January 31, 1952. ]
THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. LEONARDO EGIDO, Defendant-Appellant.
Solicitor General Pompeyo Diaz and Solicitor Pacifico P. de Castro, for Appellee.
Vivencio T. Ibrado, for Appellant.
SYLLABUS
1. CRIMINAL LAW AND PROCEDURE; ROBBERY; AGGRAVATING CIRCUMSTANCES; PLEA OF GUILTY, EFFECT OF. — It appearing that the appellant pleaded guilty to the information which specifically alleged that he took advantage of the darkness of the night and that the commission of the crime was aggravated by said circumstance, the trial court committed no error in appreciating said circumstance.
2. ID.; ID.; VIOLENCE AND INTIMIDATION AS CONTROLLING ELEMENTS; PENALTY. — Since the controlling element alleged in the information is the use of violation and intimidation against the offended parties, without specification sufficient to make the crime fall under paragraphs 1 to 4 of article 294 of the Revised Penal Code, the robbery charged necessarily has to come under paragraph 5 of said article which provides the penalty of prision correccional in its maximum period to prision mayor in its medium period "in other cases" of robbery qualified by violence or intimidation against persons.
2. ID.; ID.; VIOLENCE AND INTIMIDATION AS CONTROLLING ELEMENTS; PENALTY. — Since the controlling element alleged in the information is the use of violation and intimidation against the offended parties, without specification sufficient to make the crime fall under paragraphs 1 to 4 of article 294 of the Revised Penal Code, the robbery charged necessarily has to come under paragraph 5 of said article which provides the penalty of prision correccional in its maximum period to prision mayor in its medium period "in other cases" of robbery qualified by violence or intimidation against persons.
D E C I S I O N
PARAS, C.J. :
The defendant Leonardo Egido was charged in the Court of First Instance of Negros Occidental with the crime of robbery under the following information:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph
"That on or about October 20, 1949, at Hda. San Ramon, municipality of Cadiz, Province of Negros Occidental and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the herein accused, taking advantage of the darkness of the night, did, then and there, enter the house of one Jose Egido through the window, an opening not intended for entrance or egress, and with the intent of gain, and with the use of violence and intimidation against said Jose Egido and his wife, and once inside, did then and there, willfully, unlawfully and feloneously, take, steal and carry, away with him with the use of false keys cash in different denominations amounting to Eight Hundred Ninety-Four Pesos (P894) Philippine Currency, and one Smith & Wesson revolver caliber .38 SN-C-25187, valued at One Hundred Ninety Pesos (P190), all belonging to the offended party, Jose Egido, to the damage and prejudice of the latter in the total sum of one thousand eighty- four pesos (P1,084), Philippine Currency.
"In the commission of the crime the aggravating circumstance concurs: That the crime was committed during night time. Contrary to law."cralaw virtua1aw library
Upon a plea of guilty, the Court of First Instance of Negros Occidental convicted the defendant as charged, and, in view of the mitigating circumstance of plea of guilty and the aggravating circumstance of nocturnity, sentenced him to an indeterminate penalty of from 8 years and 1 day, prision mayor, to 14 years, 8 months and 1 day, reclusion temporal, to indemnify the offended party in the sum of P894, without subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency. From this judgment the defendant appealed and his counsel de oficio contends (1) that the trial court erred in taking into account nighttime as an aggravating circumstance, and (2) that the trial court erred in fixing the penalty.
It appearing that the appellant pleaded guilty to the information which specifically alleged that he took advantage of the darkness of the night and that the commission of the crime was aggravated by said circumstance, the trial court committed no error in appreciating said circumstance, because by pleading guilty the appellant admitted all the material facts alleged in the information.
However, an error was committed in the imposition of the penalty. Since the controlling element alleged in the information is the use of violence and intimidation against the offended parties, without specification sufficient to make the crime fall under paragraphs 1 to 4 of article 294 of the Revised Penal Code, the robbery charged necessarily has to come under paragraph 5 of said article which provides the penalty of prision correccional in its maximum period to prision mayor in its medium period "in other cases" of robbery qualified by violence or intimidation against persons. As there is one mitigating circumstance and one aggravating circumstance, the penalty should be imposed in the medium period.
It being understood that the appellant is sentenced to an indeterminate penalty of from 4 years and 2 months, prision correccional, to 8 years, prisión mayor, the appealed judgment is in all other respects affirmed with costs. So ordered.
Pablo, Bengzon, Padilla, Tuason, Montemayor, Reyes, Jugo and Bautista Angelo, JJ., concur.
"That on or about October 20, 1949, at Hda. San Ramon, municipality of Cadiz, Province of Negros Occidental and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the herein accused, taking advantage of the darkness of the night, did, then and there, enter the house of one Jose Egido through the window, an opening not intended for entrance or egress, and with the intent of gain, and with the use of violence and intimidation against said Jose Egido and his wife, and once inside, did then and there, willfully, unlawfully and feloneously, take, steal and carry, away with him with the use of false keys cash in different denominations amounting to Eight Hundred Ninety-Four Pesos (P894) Philippine Currency, and one Smith & Wesson revolver caliber .38 SN-C-25187, valued at One Hundred Ninety Pesos (P190), all belonging to the offended party, Jose Egido, to the damage and prejudice of the latter in the total sum of one thousand eighty- four pesos (P1,084), Philippine Currency.
"In the commission of the crime the aggravating circumstance concurs: That the crime was committed during night time. Contrary to law."cralaw virtua1aw library
Upon a plea of guilty, the Court of First Instance of Negros Occidental convicted the defendant as charged, and, in view of the mitigating circumstance of plea of guilty and the aggravating circumstance of nocturnity, sentenced him to an indeterminate penalty of from 8 years and 1 day, prision mayor, to 14 years, 8 months and 1 day, reclusion temporal, to indemnify the offended party in the sum of P894, without subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency. From this judgment the defendant appealed and his counsel de oficio contends (1) that the trial court erred in taking into account nighttime as an aggravating circumstance, and (2) that the trial court erred in fixing the penalty.
It appearing that the appellant pleaded guilty to the information which specifically alleged that he took advantage of the darkness of the night and that the commission of the crime was aggravated by said circumstance, the trial court committed no error in appreciating said circumstance, because by pleading guilty the appellant admitted all the material facts alleged in the information.
However, an error was committed in the imposition of the penalty. Since the controlling element alleged in the information is the use of violence and intimidation against the offended parties, without specification sufficient to make the crime fall under paragraphs 1 to 4 of article 294 of the Revised Penal Code, the robbery charged necessarily has to come under paragraph 5 of said article which provides the penalty of prision correccional in its maximum period to prision mayor in its medium period "in other cases" of robbery qualified by violence or intimidation against persons. As there is one mitigating circumstance and one aggravating circumstance, the penalty should be imposed in the medium period.
It being understood that the appellant is sentenced to an indeterminate penalty of from 4 years and 2 months, prision correccional, to 8 years, prisión mayor, the appealed judgment is in all other respects affirmed with costs. So ordered.
Pablo, Bengzon, Padilla, Tuason, Montemayor, Reyes, Jugo and Bautista Angelo, JJ., concur.
