Isidoro  Sanares y  Caerne was  charged in  the Court of First Instance of Manila under the following information:

"That on or about March 1,1927, the said accused having been granted by His  Excellency,  the Governor-General, a conditional  pardon  remitting  the un-executed  portion  of the sentence  of imprisonment of six years   and one day imposed upon him in criminal  case No. 4508 of the Court of First Instance  of  Cavite, for the  crime of theft, which he began  to serve on July 9,  1924, and having been released  from Bilibid Prison on March 1, 1927, upon accepting the condition  of such pardon, to  with that he shall not again violate any of the penal laws of the Philippine Islands; on or about February 5, 1935,  in  the City of Manila, Philippine  Islands,  the said accused  willfully,  unlawfully and feloniously violated the condition of such pardon by then and there committing the  crime of estafa for  which he was finally sentenced to suffer three months and eleven days of imprisonment, and to pay P50 indemnity, imposed upon him by the municipal court of  the  City of Manila in criminal case No. H-26727."

Upon arraignment,  the accused  pleaded guilty and the court forthwith ordered  his re-commitment for the unexpired portion of his former sentence.  The accused appealed from this judgment and prays  that he be acquitted or that the penalty be reduced.   No reason, alleged  or  extant in the record, appears in support of the first prayer, for the violation of the law is conceded, and the accused has pleaded guilty thereto.  As to the  modification of the  judgment and the reduction of the penalty, we believe that the point is well taken, as the trial court erroneously applied section 4 of Act No. 1524, which has  been expressly repealed by the Revised Penal Code.

The  record shows that the conditional  pardon  whose conditions were violated  by the accused referred to a penalty of six years and one  day of prision, of which two years, five months and twenty-two days  had been served by the accused.  The penalty remitted by the pardon was, therefore, three years, seven months and eight days.  These facts  appear in the information the  material allegations of which have been admitted by the accused  by virtue of his  plea of guilty (U.  S. vs. Burlado, 42 Phil., 72; U. S. vs. Barba, 29 Phil., 206; People vs. Cabral, G. R. No. 39200 [58 Phil., 930]).

Article  159 of  the  Revised  Penal  Code provides that "the penalty of prision correctional in its minimum period shall be imposed upon the  convict who, having been granted conditional pardon by the  Chief  Executive,  shall violate any of the  conditions  of such pardon.   However, if the penalty remitted by the granting of such pardon be higher than six years, the convict shall then suffer the unexpired portion of his original sentence."

The second part of the article just quoted is inapplicable to the case at bar  because the unexpired portion of the penalty remitted by  reason of the conditional pardon grant- ed the accused does not  exceed six years.  The first part thereof, which imposes the penalty of prision correctional in its minimum period upon the convict who, having been granted conditional pardon,  shall violate any of  its conditions, is, therefore, applicable.  The duration of this penalty is  from  six  months and one day to two years and four months.  Inasmuch as  the mitigating  circumstance of having pleaded  guilty should  be considered in  favor of the accused, and there being no aggravating  circumstance, the penalty  should be imposed in its minimum period which ranges  from six months and one day to one year, one  month and ten days of prision correctional.  The benefits afforded  by the  Indeterminate Sentence Law are not applicable to the accused, by express provision  thereof.

Wherefore, modifying  the appealed judgment, we are of the opinion that we should, as we hereby sentence the appellant to eight months of prision correctional, with costs.

Avanceña,  C. J.,  Abad Santos, Hull,  and  Vickers, JJ., concur.