People v. Tan
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: At midnight on July 12, 1935, the accused Tan Tiok Nee and his accomplices, using a ladder and taking advantage of the nighttime, surreptitiously entered the house of Hao Ni. They forcibly entered Hao Ni's room, awakened her, gagged her, and compelled her to surrender the key to her aparador. From the aparador, they stole cash amounting to P400 and jewelry valued at P3,848. They also maltreated Hao Ni. In an adjoining room, Lee Chan (alias Dy Chian) was assaulted, maltreated, and robbed of items valued at P80. The accused Tan Tiok Nee was identified as having a knife and taking a gold necklace from Eng Sio, the daughter-in-law of Hao Ni, while his companions took other valuables worth P172. Go Tien Seng, the husband of Eng Sio and son of Hao Ni, was also assaulted and maltreated, suffering bodily harm. Procedural History: The accused were arrested two days after the incident. Tan Tiok Nee was found guilty by the Court of First Instance of Manila of robbery in an inhabited house and sentenced to an indeterminate penalty of four years and two months of prision correccional to eight years and one day of prision mayor, and ordered to return the stolen items. The Appeal: The accused Tan Tiok Nee appealed the judgment, assigning as the sole error the imposition of the penalty by the lower court.
Issue(s)
Whether the penalty imposed by the lower court was correct. Whether the aggravating circumstance of nocturnity was properly considered.
Ruling
The appealed judgment is modified. The accused-appellant is sentenced to the indeterminate penalty of from four years and two months of prision correccional to twelve years and one day of reclusion temporal. The appealed judgment is affirmed in all other respects.
Ratio Decidendi
On Issue 1: The Supreme Court modified the penalty imposed by the lower court. The crime committed was robbery in an inhabited house with arms and by means of scaling, defined under Article 299, paragraph (a), subsection 1 of the Revised Penal Code. This offense is punishable with prision mayor in its medium period to reclusion temporal in its minimum period, with the value of the property taken exceeding P250. The Court noted that the Indeterminate Sentence Law requires the maximum term to be the penalty that could be imposed under the Revised Penal Code, and the minimum term to be within the range of the penalty next lower. The penalty prescribed for the offense is from eight years and one day to fourteen years and eight months. Considering the aggravating circumstance of nocturnity and no mitigating circumstances, the penalty should be imposed in its maximum period, which is from twelve years and one day to fourteen years and eight months. The penalty next lower in degree is prision correccional in its medium period to prision mayor in its minimum period, ranging from two years, four months, and one day to eight years. The minimum penalty of four years and two months of prision correccional imposed by the lower court was within this range. However, the maximum penalty of eight years and one day fixed by the court a quo was erroneous; it should have been twelve years and one day of reclusion temporal. On Issue 2: The Court implicitly considered the aggravating circumstance of nocturnity, as it was mentioned in the factual findings and used in determining the penalty. The facts established that the crime was committed at midnight and that the perpetrators took advantage of the nighttime, which are elements of nocturnity. The Court stated that the commission of the crime was attended by the aggravating circumstance of nocturnity with no mitigating circumstance to compensate it. The Court also noted that even if lack of instruction existed, it could not be taken into consideration in crimes of robbery where maltreatment was unnecessarily present, as per Article 15 of the Revised Penal Code.
Main Doctrine
The crime of robbery committed in an inhabited house, with the use of arms and by means of scaling, falls under Article 299, paragraph (a), subsection 1 of the Revised Penal Code. When applying the Indeterminate Sentence Law, the maximum term of the indeterminate sentence shall be the penalty that could be imposed under the Revised Penal Code, considering aggravating and mitigating circumstances, and the minimum term shall be within the range of the penalty next lower to that prescribed by the Code for the offense.