People v. Marquez
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Reynaldo Layog y Cadayday, Segundo Marquez y Castro, and Fermin Caiña y del Mundo were charged with theft of equipment, materials, and tools belonging to Manila Electric Railroad & Light Co. (Meralco), valued at P3,500.00. Procedural History: Upon arraignment, the accused pleaded not guilty. However, they later sought to withdraw their plea and substitute it with a plea of guilty as accessories to the crime of theft. The prosecution did not object and recommended the minimum penalty for the lesser offense. The trial court found them guilty as accessories after the fact and sentenced each to four (4) months and one (1) day of arresto mayor, plus one-third of the costs. The stolen properties were recovered and ordered returned. The Petition: Only Segundo Marquez y Castro appealed the decision, questioning the penalty imposed. He argued that the penalty should have been destierro, not arresto mayor, based on Article 309, paragraph 3, in relation to Articles 53 and 27, paragraph 4, of the Revised Penal Code.
Issue(s)
Whether the penalty imposed on the appellant for being an accessory after the fact to the crime of theft was correct. Whether the penalty of destierro should have been imposed instead of arresto mayor.
Ruling
The appeal is well-taken. The decision of the trial court is modified regarding the appellant Segundo Marquez y Castro, reducing his penalty to one (1) month and one (1) day of arresto mayor.
Ratio Decidendi
On whether the penalty imposed was correct: The appellant contends that for theft of property valued between P200.00 and P6,000.00, the penalty for the consummated crime is prision correccional in its minimum and medium periods. Pursuant to Article 53 of the Revised Penal Code, pleading guilty to a lesser offense requires a penalty lower by two degrees than that prescribed for the consummated felony. The penalty lower by two degrees than prision correccional in its minimum and medium periods is destierro in its maximum period to arresto mayor in its minimum period. The trial court erred in imposing four (4) months and one (1) day of arresto mayor, which falls within the medium period of arresto mayor, instead of the minimum period. On whether destierro should have been imposed: The Court, referencing its ruling in Jose Cristobal vs. The People of the Philippines, G.R. No. L-1542, August 30, 1949, clarified that two degrees lower than prision correccional in its minimum and medium periods is destierro in its maximum period to arresto mayor in its minimum period. The medium degree of this combined penalty range is one month and one day of arresto mayor, which is more favorable to the accused. The Solicitor General agreed with this interpretation and recommended the reduction of the penalty. Therefore, the penalty of one (1) month and one (1) day of arresto mayor is the legally prescribed penalty for the appellant's plea to the lesser offense.
Main Doctrine
When an accused pleads guilty to a lesser offense, the penalty should be determined by reducing the penalty for the consummated felony by two degrees, as provided in Article 53 of the Revised Penal Code. The trial court erred in imposing a penalty higher than that legally prescribed for an accessory after the fact.