FIRST DIVISION
[G.R. No. 45406. March 11, 1937. ]
THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. ENRICO ESTURIS Y SALVADOR, BONIFACIO TARZON Y MAQUINTO (alias BONIFACIO TUAZON), and PEDRO NOLASCO Y RUBIO, Defendants. PEDRO NOLASCO Y RUBIO, Appellant.
Jose Teodoro for Appellant.
Solicitor-General Tuason for Appellee.
SYLLABUS
CRIMINAL LAW; ATTEMPTED TRESPASS TO DWELLING; PENALTY. — Prosecuted for attempted trespass to dwelling, P. N. R. pleaded guilty of said crime upon arraignment. Held: That the penalty prescribed for his crime, taking into consideration the mitigating circumstance of voluntary confession of guilt present therein, without any aggravating circumstance to offset it, is arresto menor in its minimum period and a fine of less than P200 (articles 280; 51; 64, rule 2; and 71 of the Revised Penal Code, the latter as lately amended by section 3 of Commonwealth Act No. 217). In other words, the penalty which should be imposed upon the appellant is ten days of arrest menor and a fine of P150 with subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency.
D E C I S I O N
DIAZ, J.:
Prosecuted for attempted trespass to dwelling and convicted thereof upon his voluntary confession of guilt made before the evidence was presented by the prosecution, Pedro Nolasco y Rubio was sentenced by the Court of First Instance of Manila to one month of arresto menor and to pay a fine of P200. Not agreeing to the judgment, said accused appealed therefrom; but the attorney appointed to defend him de oficio, believing that there is no possible defense for him and that, furthermore, the penalty imposed upon him is mild, makes no recommendation, thereby making it understood that the judgment appealed from should be affirmed.
The Solicitor-General recommends that the aforesaid judgment be modified in the sense of imposing upon the appellant from one to ten days of arresto mayor and a fine not exceeding P500.
The penalty prescribed for the crime committed by the appellant, taking into consideration the mitigating circumstance of voluntary confession of guilt present therein, without any aggravating circumstance to offset it, is arresto menor in its minimum period and a fine of less than P200 (articles 280; 51; 64, rule 2; and 71 of the Revised Penal Code, the latter as amended by section 3 of Commonwealth Act No. 217). In other words, the penalty which should be imposed upon the appellant is ten days of arresto menor and a fine of P150 with subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency.
Modified as above-stated, the appealed judgment is affirmed in all other respects, with costs to the appellant. So ordered.
Avanceña, C.J., Villa-Real, Abad Santos, Imperial, Laurel and Concepcion, JJ., concur.
The Solicitor-General recommends that the aforesaid judgment be modified in the sense of imposing upon the appellant from one to ten days of arresto mayor and a fine not exceeding P500.
The penalty prescribed for the crime committed by the appellant, taking into consideration the mitigating circumstance of voluntary confession of guilt present therein, without any aggravating circumstance to offset it, is arresto menor in its minimum period and a fine of less than P200 (articles 280; 51; 64, rule 2; and 71 of the Revised Penal Code, the latter as amended by section 3 of Commonwealth Act No. 217). In other words, the penalty which should be imposed upon the appellant is ten days of arresto menor and a fine of P150 with subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency.
Modified as above-stated, the appealed judgment is affirmed in all other respects, with costs to the appellant. So ordered.
Avanceña, C.J., Villa-Real, Abad Santos, Imperial, Laurel and Concepcion, JJ., concur.
