People v. Mape
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: On August 7, 1945, at approximately 3:00 a.m., appellant Antonio Mape and an unapprehended companion, Andres Salas, entered the house of Brigadier-General J.T. Smith and Lt. W. Gallows by breaking through the kitchen door's wire screen. Mape entered Lt. Gallows' room, while Salas entered another. As Mape was leaving Lt. Gallows' room, the latter, who was awake in bed, pursued and caught him. General Smith assisted Lt. Gallows in subduing Mape. Upon arrival of the police, Mape was found in possession of a wallet (P5), a fountain pen (P15), and P100 in cash, all belonging to Lt. Gallows. Mape's companion escaped, and from Gen. Smith's room, a wrist watch (P100) and a Parker fountain pen (P17) were reported missing. Procedural History: The Court of First Instance of Manila convicted Antonio Mape of robbery and imposed an indeterminate sentence, ordered him to indemnify Gen. J.T. Smith, with subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency, and to pay half the costs. The Petition: The appellant appealed the judgment of conviction.
Issue(s)
Whether drunkenness can be considered a mitigating circumstance when it is not properly established. Whether nocturnity is an aggravating circumstance in the commission of robbery. How to determine the penalty for robbery under Article 299 of the Revised Penal Code, considering the value of property taken and whether arms were carried. How to compute the indeterminate sentence under Act No. 4103, as amended, considering the prescribed penalty and modifying circumstances.
Ruling
The judgment of the Court of First Instance is modified. Appellant Antonio Mape is sentenced to an indeterminate penalty of two (2) months and one (1) day to four (4) years and two (2) months. In all other respects, the judgment is affirmed.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of drunkenness as a mitigating circumstance: The Court held that the appellant's claim of drunkenness was an uncorroborated statement, clearly an attempt to lend truth to his allegation of a purely business transaction. The fact that the stolen articles and cash were found in his possession immediately after apprehension within the house at an unusual hour discredits this unsupported defense. Therefore, drunkenness cannot serve as a mitigating circumstance. On the issue of nocturnity as an aggravating circumstance: The Court considered nocturnity as an aggravating circumstance because the crime was committed at nighttime. Since the mitigating circumstance of drunkenness was not creditably established, it could not offset the aggravating circumstance of nocturnity. On the penalty for robbery under Article 299: The Court applied the penultimate paragraph of Article 299 of the Revised Penal Code, which states that when offenders do not carry arms and the value of the property taken does not exceed P250, they shall suffer the penalty prescribed in the two next preceding paragraphs, in its minimum period. The penalty prescribed in the two next preceding paragraphs is prision correccional medium to prision mayor minimum. Due to the presence of the aggravating circumstance of nocturnity, this penalty must be applied in its maximum period, which is 3 years, 6 months and 21 days to 4 years and 2 months. On the computation of the indeterminate sentence: For the purpose of the Indeterminate Sentence Law, the minimum of the indeterminate penalty shall be within the range of the penalty next lower to that prescribed by the Code for the offense. Prescinding from the modifying circumstances, the basic penalty is prision correccional medium to prision mayor minimum. The penalty next lower in degree, according to Section 4, Article 61 of the Code, is arresto mayor medium to prision correccional minimum. Therefore, the minimum of the indeterminate penalty must be taken from this range. The Court ultimately modified the sentence to an indeterminate penalty of two (2) months and one (1) day to four (4) years and two (2) months.
Main Doctrine
The penalty for robbery under Article 299 of the Revised Penal Code, when offenders do not carry arms and the value of property taken does not exceed P250, is the minimum period of the penalty prescribed in the two preceding paragraphs. The presence of an aggravating circumstance, such as nocturnity, requires the application of the maximum period of the prescribed penalty. For the purpose of the Indeterminate Sentence Law, the penalty next lower in degree to the basic penalty is determined without regard to modifying circumstances.