Appellant Arnulfo Alvarez  was accused of robbery in an, inhabited  house  in  an information filed with the Court of First  Instance of  Manila, which  reads as follows:

"That  in  or  about and  during the period  comprised  between January  15 and  January 16, 1955, in the  City  of  Manila,  Philippines, the said accused did then and there willfully,  unlawfully and feloniously enter the  store and house No. 1106 San Fernando St., Binondo,  in said City,  which  was at the same  time  the dwelling place  of  one  Tiong Cuanco  and  the  members  of his family  and therefore  an  inhabited house   by  then and there passing thru the top of  the mam door of the store, and house after forcibly  cutting the iron  grills on top  of said door, and once inside the said store and house, with intent of gain and without the 'consent' of the owner thereof, wilfully,  unlawfully and feloniously took,, stole and carried away 20 pieces of Gas Lantern  (Optimus) made in Sweden, 300 candle power, valued at P600  and 5 pieces of Gas Lantern (Petromax) made in Germany valued at P160 belonging to the said Tiong Cuanco, to the  damage and prejudice of the said owner in the total sum of P760  Philippine currency."

Upon arraignment, he pleaded guilty and was sentenced, considering his plea of  guilty as a mitigating circumstance, to  suffer an indeterminate penalty of from  six  years of prision mayor, as minimum, to twelve years and one  day of  reclusion temporal,  as  maximum, to return to the offended party the stolen articles not recovered or indemnify him in the sum  of P729.60, without subsidiary imprisonment  in  case of insolvency  and to pay the costs.
 
Not  satisfied with the  penalty, imposed upon him,  he appealed from the decision only to  question its propriety.
 
 The crime alleged in  the information,  of which the  appellant pleaded guilty,  clearly falls  under the provision of Article 299 of the Revised Penal Code and penalized there  under with  prision mayor, for the  value of the stolen property exceeds  P250  but the appellant was  not armed when he committed the  crime.  Hence, the proper penalty that should be meted upon him is the minimum period of  prision mayor ranging from six years and one day to eight years.  Accordingly, and  applying  the provisions of  the Indeterminate Sentence Law, the decision  must be modified and appellant is hereby sentenced to  an indeterminate penalty  of from two  years and four months  of prision correceional, as minimum,  to eight years of prision mayor, as  maximum.
 
 Appellant contends that he is entitled to  a. fixed penalty alleging that the present  case is his first offense, that he  did  not  molest the family living  in the tenement robbed and that he was  not armed when he committed  the offense.  But granting  these allegations to  be true although we do not find them clearly proven except the fact that the appellant was  not armed when he committed the crime at bar the same do not constitute legal ground for imposing upon him a fixed penalty instead of applying the Indeterminate Sentence Law which is favorable to him;
 
 Wherefore,  with the modification of the appealed decision as above indicated, the same is hereby affirmed in all other  respects, with costs against the appellant.

Bengzon, Padilla,,  Montemayor, Reyes,   A.,  Bautista, Angelo, Labrador, Conception, Reyes, J. B.  L., and Felix, JJ., concur.