[ G. R. No. 47960, April 08, 1941 ]
THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF AND APPELLEE, VS. JOAQUIN MEMPIN, DEFENDANT AND APPELLANT.
LAUREL, J.:
The appellant herein was charged in the Court of First Instance of Nueva Ecija with the crime of robbery committed, according to the information, as follows:
"That on or about the 13th day of June, 1940, in the municipality of Rizal, Province of Nueva Ecija, P. I., and within the jurisdiction of this court, the above-named defendant, Joaquin Mempin, being a companion in the house of Aurelia Pancho and with grave abuse of confidence, taking advantage of the absence of Aurelia Pancho (owner of the house), by means of force upon things, did, then and there voluntarily, maliciously, illegally and criminally break the trunk and take therefrom with intent to gain the following personal properties:
The appellant pleaded guilty to the offense as charged, and was sentenced by the trial court to five years, five months and eleven days of prision correccional, to indemnify the offended party in the sum of P126.10, and to pay the costs. The defendant was also sentenced to three years, six months and twenty-one days of prisión correccional for habitual delinquency.
We find that the information filed in this case was, to say the least, carelessly drawn up by the provincial fiscal of Nueva Ecija. It is alleged that the appellant "by means of force ' upon things, did, then and there voluntarily, maliciously, illegally and criminally break the trunk and take therefrom with intent to gain, among other things, * * * one carabao" worth P50. The absurdity of the information in this respect seems to have been likewise overlooked by the trial judge. The appellant should, therefore, be convicted only for the robbery of the first three items mentioned in the information, namely: cash money of P44; receipt valued at P15; and the certificate of cattle.
According to counsel for the appellant, the allegation which refers to habitual delinquency was deleted by the provincial fiscal. As a matter of fact, there really appears on the first page of the information a line drawn from top to bottom crossing the second paragraph, which line is initialed by the provincial fiscal. In the interest of the orderly administration of justice, amendments to the information should not be done in this haphazard manner which is likely to give rise to confusion. The conviction of the appellant for habitual delinquency is set aside.
The penalty applicable under the penultimate paragraph of article 299 of the Revised Penal Code is prision correctional in its medium period (the minimum period of the penalty next lower in degree to that of prision mayor in its medium period to reclusion temporal in its minimum period), which is to be imposed in its medium degree, or from two years, eleven mouths and eleven days, to three years, six months and twenty days, inasmuch as the aggravating circumstance of grave abuse of confidence is offset by the plea of guilty. (Art. 64, Nos. 1 and 4, Revised Penal Code.) Pursuant to the Indeterminate Sentence Law, therefore, the appellant should be sentenced to an indeterminate penalty, the minimum period of which shall not be less than two months and one day, nor more than four months (this being the range of arresto mayor in its medium period, the penalty next lower in degree to the prescribed penalty which is prision correctional in its medium period) and the maximum, not less than two years, eleven months and eleven days, nor more than three years, six months and twenty lays.
Accordingly, the judgment of the lower court is modified, and the accused is hereby sentenced to an indeterminate term of from three months to three years, six months and twenty days imprisonment, to indemnify the offended party in the sum of P59, with subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency, and to pay the costs.
The right to recover the carabao, the rice and the palay referred to in the information, is reserved to the offended party. So ordered.
Imperial, Diaz, Moran, and Horrilleno, JJ., concur.
Judgment modified.
"That on or about the 13th day of June, 1940, in the municipality of Rizal, Province of Nueva Ecija, P. I., and within the jurisdiction of this court, the above-named defendant, Joaquin Mempin, being a companion in the house of Aurelia Pancho and with grave abuse of confidence, taking advantage of the absence of Aurelia Pancho (owner of the house), by means of force upon things, did, then and there voluntarily, maliciously, illegally and criminally break the trunk and take therefrom with intent to gain the following personal properties:
belonging to Aurelia Pancho against her will."
Cash money ......................................................................................... Receipt valued at ................................................................................. Certificate of large cattle ...................................................................... 2 1/2 sacks of rice valued at ................................................................ 1 cavan of palay valued at ................................................................... 1 carabao valued at ............................................................................ Total ..................................................................................................
The appellant pleaded guilty to the offense as charged, and was sentenced by the trial court to five years, five months and eleven days of prision correccional, to indemnify the offended party in the sum of P126.10, and to pay the costs. The defendant was also sentenced to three years, six months and twenty-one days of prisión correccional for habitual delinquency.
We find that the information filed in this case was, to say the least, carelessly drawn up by the provincial fiscal of Nueva Ecija. It is alleged that the appellant "by means of force ' upon things, did, then and there voluntarily, maliciously, illegally and criminally break the trunk and take therefrom with intent to gain, among other things, * * * one carabao" worth P50. The absurdity of the information in this respect seems to have been likewise overlooked by the trial judge. The appellant should, therefore, be convicted only for the robbery of the first three items mentioned in the information, namely: cash money of P44; receipt valued at P15; and the certificate of cattle.
According to counsel for the appellant, the allegation which refers to habitual delinquency was deleted by the provincial fiscal. As a matter of fact, there really appears on the first page of the information a line drawn from top to bottom crossing the second paragraph, which line is initialed by the provincial fiscal. In the interest of the orderly administration of justice, amendments to the information should not be done in this haphazard manner which is likely to give rise to confusion. The conviction of the appellant for habitual delinquency is set aside.
The penalty applicable under the penultimate paragraph of article 299 of the Revised Penal Code is prision correctional in its medium period (the minimum period of the penalty next lower in degree to that of prision mayor in its medium period to reclusion temporal in its minimum period), which is to be imposed in its medium degree, or from two years, eleven mouths and eleven days, to three years, six months and twenty days, inasmuch as the aggravating circumstance of grave abuse of confidence is offset by the plea of guilty. (Art. 64, Nos. 1 and 4, Revised Penal Code.) Pursuant to the Indeterminate Sentence Law, therefore, the appellant should be sentenced to an indeterminate penalty, the minimum period of which shall not be less than two months and one day, nor more than four months (this being the range of arresto mayor in its medium period, the penalty next lower in degree to the prescribed penalty which is prision correctional in its medium period) and the maximum, not less than two years, eleven months and eleven days, nor more than three years, six months and twenty lays.
Accordingly, the judgment of the lower court is modified, and the accused is hereby sentenced to an indeterminate term of from three months to three years, six months and twenty days imprisonment, to indemnify the offended party in the sum of P59, with subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency, and to pay the costs.
The right to recover the carabao, the rice and the palay referred to in the information, is reserved to the offended party. So ordered.
Imperial, Diaz, Moran, and Horrilleno, JJ., concur.
Judgment modified.