G.R. No. 1420 : March 10, 1905
THE UNITED STATES, complainant-appellee, vs. BENITO CASTROVERDE, ET AL., defendants-appellants.

FACTS:
Benito Castroverde was convicted by the Court of First Instance of Iloilo for the crime of robbery by an armed band (robo en cuadrilla). He was sentenced to eight years of imprisonment and ordered to pay an indemnity of 90 pesos to the owner of the stolen property, Gabriel Pageatipunan, plus costs. The trial court imposed an alternative subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency for the non-payment of both the indemnity and the costs. In its decision, the trial court considered deliberate premeditation and the assistance of armed persons as aggravating circumstances under Article 10 of the Penal Code.

ISSUE:
1. Whether the trial court correctly considered deliberate premeditation and commission by an armed band as aggravating circumstances for the crime of robbery by an armed band.
2. Whether the trial court correctly imposed subsidiary imprisonment for the non-payment of the civil indemnity and costs.

RULING:
The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction but modified the penalty and eliminated the subsidiary imprisonment.

1. On Aggravating Circumstances: The trial court erred in treating deliberate premeditation and the use of an armed band as aggravating circumstances. Deliberate premeditation is an inherent element of crimes like robbery and theft; thus, it cannot be separately considered as an aggravating circumstance, as the penalty prescribed by law already accounts for it. Furthermore, Article 504 of the Penal Code specifically prescribes the penalty for robbery committed “by an armed band.” Therefore, this circumstance is already absorbed in the classification and penalty of the crime and should not be considered a second time as an aggravating circumstance under Article 10.

2. On the Penalty: The prescribed penalty for robbery by an armed band under Article 504, in relation to Article 503(5) of the Penal Code, is presidio correccional to presidio mayor in its medium degree, or six years and one day to ten years of presidio mayor. The Court found the eight-year presidio mayor sentence imposed by the trial court to be within the proper range and affirmed it.

3. On Subsidiary Imprisonment: The trial court erred in imposing subsidiary imprisonment. First, there is no provision in the Spanish Penal Code (then in force) for subsidiary imprisonment due to unpaid costs in criminal cases. Second, under Article 51 of the Penal Code, subsidiary imprisonment for failure to pay civil indemnity is prohibited when the principal penalty imposed is of a higher grade than presidio correccional. Since the principal penalty of presidio mayor is a higher grade, the imposition of subsidiary imprisonment was illegal.

DISPOSITIVE PORTION:
The appealed sentence was MODIFIED. The principal penalty is fixed at eight years of presidio mayor. The portion imposing subsidiary imprisonment for non-payment of the indemnity and costs is REMITTED and declared of no effect. In all other respects, the sentence is AFFIRMED. Costs of the appeal are imposed on the appellant.