GR L 47960; (April, 1941) (Digest)
G.R. No. L-47960; April 8, 1941
THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. JOAQUIN MEMPIN, defendant-appellant.
FACTS
The appellant, Joaquin Mempin, was charged in the Court of First Instance of Nueva Ecija with the crime of robbery. The information alleged that on or about June 13, 1940, in Rizal, Nueva Ecija, the appellant, being a companion in the house of Aurelia Pancho and with grave abuse of confidence, took advantage of the owner’s absence and, by means of force upon things, broke a trunk and took various items with intent to gain. The items listed included cash money (P44.00), a receipt valued at P15.00, a certificate of large cattle, 2 ½ sacks of rice (P14.50), 1 cavan of palay (P2.60), and 1 carabao valued at P50.00, with a total value of P126.10. The appellant pleaded guilty to the offense as charged. The trial court sentenced him to five years, five months and eleven days of prision correccional, to indemnify the offended party P126.10, and to pay the costs. The defendant was also sentenced to an additional penalty of three years, six months and twenty-one days of prision correccional for habitual delinquency.
ISSUE
The primary issues resolved by the Supreme Court were: (1) the correctness of the information and the items subject of the robbery, given the absurdity of alleging the theft of a carabao from a broken trunk; (2) the validity of the amendment or deletion of the habitual delinquency allegation; and (3) the proper penalty to be imposed considering the plea of guilty and applicable laws.
RULING
The Supreme Court modified the judgment of the lower court. It found the information carelessly drawn, noting the absurdity of alleging the appellant broke a trunk and took therefrom a carabao. Therefore, the appellant could only be convicted for the robbery of the items plausibly taken from the trunk: the cash money (P44), receipt (P15), and certificate of cattle. The Court also set aside the conviction for habitual delinquency because the amendment to the information deleting this allegation was done in a haphazard manner (a line drawn through the paragraph, initiated by the fiscal), which was not proper for the orderly administration of justice.
On the penalty, the Court applied the penultimate paragraph of Article 299 of the Revised Penal Code, prescribing prision correccional in its medium period. The aggravating circumstance of grave abuse of confidence was offset by the mitigating circumstance of plea of guilty. The prescribed penalty was prision correccional in its medium degree, or from two years, eleven months and eleven days to three years, six months and twenty days. Applying the Indeterminate Sentence Law, the appellant was sentenced to an indeterminate penalty with a minimum within the range of arresto mayor in its medium period (the penalty next lower) and a maximum within the prescribed penalty’s medium degree. Accordingly, the appellant was 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 (for the cash, receipt, and certificate), with subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency, and to pay the costs. The right to recover the carabao, rice, and palay was reserved to the offended party.