People v. Alvarez
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: The accused, Arnulfo Alvarez, was charged with robbery in an inhabited house. The information alleged that on or about January 15-16, 1955, in Manila, the accused unlawfully entered the store and house at 1106 San Fernando St., Binondo, which was the dwelling of Tiong Cuanco and his family. He gained entry by passing through the top of the main door after forcibly cutting the iron grills. Once inside, with intent of gain and without consent, he stole 20 pieces of Gas Lantern (Optimus) valued at P600 and 5 pieces of Gas Lantern (Petromax) valued at P160, belonging to Tiong Cuanco, to the damage and prejudice of the owner in the total sum of P760. Procedural History: Upon arraignment, the accused pleaded guilty. The Court of First Instance of Manila sentenced him to suffer an indeterminate penalty of from six years of prision mayor, as minimum, to twelve years and one day of reclusion temporal, as maximum. He was also ordered to return the stolen articles not recovered or indemnify the offended party in the sum of P729.60, without subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency, and to pay the costs. The Appeal: The defendant-appellant, Arnulfo Alvarez, appealed the decision, not to question his guilt, but to question the propriety of the penalty imposed upon him. He contended that he was entitled to a fixed penalty, citing that it was his first offense, he did not molest the family, and he was not armed during the commission of the offense.
Issue(s)
Whether the penalty imposed upon the appellant, considering his plea of guilty and the circumstances of the case, is proper under the Revised Penal Code and the Indeterminate Sentence Law. Whether the Indeterminate Sentence Law should be applied in this case.
Ruling
The appealed decision was modified in terms of the penalty imposed. The appellant was sentenced to an indeterminate penalty of from two years and four months of prision correccional, as minimum, to eight years of prision mayor, as maximum. The decision was affirmed in all other respects.
Ratio Decidendi
On Issue 1: The Court found that the crime alleged in the information, of which the appellant pleaded guilty, clearly falls under Article 299 of the Revised Penal Code. For the value of the stolen property exceeding P250 but the appellant not being armed, the penalty prescribed is prision mayor. The Court noted that the trial court correctly considered the plea of guilty as a mitigating circumstance. However, the penalty imposed by the trial court, from six years of prision mayor to twelve years and one day of reclusion temporal, was found to be incorrect. The Court clarified that the penalty for robbery under Article 299, when the value of the stolen property exceeds P250 but the offender is not armed, is prision mayor, which ranges from six years and one day to eight years. Therefore, the maximum of the indeterminate sentence should not exceed the medium period of prision mayor, which is eight years. On Issue 2: The Court held that the Indeterminate Sentence Law is applicable in this case. The appellant's contention that he is entitled to a fixed penalty because it was his first offense, he did not molest the family, and he was not armed, does not constitute a legal ground for imposing a fixed penalty instead of applying the Indeterminate Sentence Law. The Indeterminate Sentence Law is favorable to the accused and should be applied when its conditions are met. Granting these allegations to be true, they do not override the mandatory application of the Indeterminate Sentence Law. The Court applied the Indeterminate Sentence Law by setting the minimum penalty within the range of the minimum period of prision mayor (six years and one day to eight years) and the maximum penalty within the range of the medium period of prision mayor (eight years).
Main Doctrine
When an accused pleads guilty to a crime penalized under Article 299 of the Revised Penal Code, and the value of the stolen property exceeds P250 but the accused was not armed, the penalty prescribed is prision mayor. In such cases, the Indeterminate Sentence Law must be applied, mandating an indeterminate penalty where the minimum is within the range of the minimum period of the prescribed penalty and the maximum is within the range of the prescribed penalty in its medium period.