Appeal from a judgment of the Court of First Instance of  Manila, finding the appellant guilty of  the  crime of estafa and sentencing him to imprisonment  for  a period of  six months and one day of prision correctional, to indemnify the  Philippine Charity Sweepstakes Office in the sum  of  P9,060, with  subsidiary imprisonment in ease of insolvency, and to pay the costs.  Only the following questions of law are raised in the appeal:

"I.  The lower court  error in not  considering this ease as  civil, particularly because of a partial payment admitted in the decision; and

"II. The lower court erred in imposing on the accused the penalty prescribed in the 2nd paragraph  of  Article 315 of the Revised Penal Code,  instead of that prescribed  in Article 316 (B) or that in Article 818."  (p. 1, Appellant's Brief)

It is contended in support  of the first assignment of error that  the Philippine Charity Sweepstakes Office accepted partial payment; that according to the information the relation between the offended party and the appellant is one of agency, which  cannot be the basis of criminal responsibility; and that the information does not charge an offense.  It is not true  that the information does  not charge an offense because allegation is made that appellant received sweepstakes tickets from  the offended party for the purpose of  selling  the same  under the  express  obligation of  making an accounting thereof and turning over the proceeds of the sale  to  the offended party, and that the appellant failed to  comply with his obligation  within a  reasonable length  of time  and misappropriated,  misapplied and converted  the tickets or their  value  to his own personal use and benefit, to the damage of the offended party.  Neither  is it true  that the obligation contracted by the appellant  is a civil  one; under  the allegations  the act of the  appellant is  characterized by  abuse of  confidence. The act of  the  appellant  consists in misappropriating, misapplying or  converting the tickets  or their value  with unfaithfulness or abuse of confidence,  which. is  an  offense defined in the  law (Article  315, paragraph 1 (6), Revised  Penal Code).   Acceptance of partial  payment by an offended party is not one of the means for extinguishing criminal liability (Camus vs.  Court of Appeals,  et al., 92 Phil.,  85;  48 Off. Gaz., 3898).  A  criminal offense is  committed against the People and  the offended party  may not waive or  extinguish the criminal  liability that the law imposes for the commission of the offense.

In support of the second assignment of error, it is argued that  the penalty is too strict and in accordance with general principles of law  which demand a liberal  application of criminal laws,  the amount of P9,060  misappropriated should be considered only as falling under paragraph 3 of Article 315 of the Revised Penal  Code, because the value of money  since the fixing of the penalty in the Revised Penal Code in the  year 1930 has considerably decreased.  The argument is indeed novel, although there seems to  be. some reason therefor.  It is true that about 27 years  ago the value of the peso was very much more than  its present value.  However, courts are not authorized to adjust penalties according to the  changing value of the legal  currency, as  this  clearly falls within  the province of the Legislature.

However, the penalty imposed  by the trial court, which is that of six months and one day of prision correctional, is not  in  accordance  with  the  provisions  of law.  The proper penalty is the indeterminate sentence  running from 2 months and  1 day to 6 months as minimum,  and from 1 year, 8 months and  21  days to 2 years,  11 months and 10 days as maximum.

The judgment appealed from  is, therefore, hereby affirmed, but the penalty imposed  is hereby  modified and the appellant sentenced to 6 months of arresto  mayor  as minimum to 1 year, 8 months and 21  days  as maximum. In all other respects  the penalty imposed  by the trial court is affirmed.  Costs against appellant.

Paras, C. J., Bengzon, Padilla,  Montemayor, Reyes, A., Bautista Angelo, Concepcion, Reyes, J. B. L., Endencia, and Felix, JJ., concur.