People v. Nolasco
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Pedro Nolasco y Rubio was prosecuted for attempted trespass to dwelling. Procedural History: He was convicted by the Court of First Instance of Manila based on his voluntary confession of guilt made before the prosecution presented its evidence. He was sentenced to one month of arresto menor and a fine of P200. The Appeal: Aggrieved, the accused appealed the judgment. The attorney appointed to defend him de oficio found no possible defense and believed the penalty imposed was mild, making no recommendation and implying affirmation. The Solicitor-General recommended modification of the judgment to impose a penalty of one to ten days of arresto menor and a fine not exceeding P500.
Issue(s)
Whether the penalty imposed by the trial court was correct given the voluntary confession of guilt and the provisions of the Revised Penal Code.
Ruling
The Supreme Court modified the penalty imposed by the trial court. It affirmed the conviction for attempted trespass to dwelling but imposed a penalty of ten days of arresto menor and a fine of P150, with subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency, considering the mitigating circumstance of voluntary confession of guilt and the absence of aggravating circumstances. The appealed judgment was affirmed in all other respects.
Ratio Decidendi
On Whether the penalty imposed by the trial court was correct given the voluntary confession of guilt and the provisions of the Revised Penal Code: The Supreme Court held that the penalty imposed by the trial court was not in accordance with law. The appellant was prosecuted for attempted trespass to dwelling, an offense penalized under Article 280 of the Revised Penal Code. The appellant voluntarily confessed his guilt before the presentation of evidence, which is a mitigating circumstance under Article 64, rule 2, of the Revised Penal Code. There were no aggravating circumstances to offset this mitigating circumstance. Therefore, the penalty should be imposed in its minimum period, as provided by Article 51 of the Revised Penal Code for attempted offenses. Considering the penalty for consummated trespass to dwelling, which is arresto mayor in its minimum and medium periods, the minimum period for the attempted crime is arresto menor in its minimum period, which ranges from one to ten days. The fine should not exceed P200. The Court, taking into account the specific facts and the mitigating circumstance, imposed a penalty of ten days of arresto menor and a fine of P150, with subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency, as provided by Article 71 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended by section 3 of Commonwealth Act No. 217. This modification aligns the imposed penalty with the legal prescriptions for the offense committed and the appreciated mitigating circumstance.
Main Doctrine
The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction for attempted trespass to dwelling but modified the penalty imposed by the lower court. It held that considering the voluntary confession of guilt as a mitigating circumstance and the absence of any aggravating circumstances, the penalty should be arresto menor in its minimum period, which is from one to ten days, and a fine not exceeding P200, with subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency, in accordance with Articles 280, 51, 64 (rule 2), and 71 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended.