G.R. No. 26284 , November 17, 1926
THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS, plaintiff-appellee, vs. JUAN TUBOG, ET AL., defendants. FLORENCIO POSTRERO (alias Dionisio Castreto), appellant.

FACTS

The appellant, Florencio Postrero, along with his co-defendants, was charged with the crime of robbery. The information alleged that on or about June 22, 1926, in Jagna, Bohol, the defendants, conspiring and armed, with intent to gain and through force upon things, broke the lock of a door of a store and a part of an iron safe inside, stealing its contents worth P1,930. All defendants pleaded guilty. The trial court sentenced Postrero, as a principal, to ten years and one day of *presidio mayor*. He appealed, but his attorney *de oficio* found no error and recommended affirmance. The Attorney-General, however, argued that the penalty should be lower because the information failed to allege that the store was an “inhabited house” at the time of the robbery.

ISSUE

Whether the penalty for robbery should be imposed under Article 508 (robbery in an inhabited house) or Article 512 (robbery in an uninhabited place or building) of the Penal Code, given that the information described the crime as committed in a “store” without alleging it was inhabited.

RULING

The Supreme Court modified the penalty. It ruled that the crime should be penalized under Article 512 of the Penal Code, as the information did not allege that the store was an “inhabited house.”

The Court distinguished between a “store” and an “inhabited house.” A “store” is legally defined as a place where goods are kept for sale, not necessarily a dwelling. While it acknowledged that some Chinese merchants might use a *tienda* as a dwelling, this was not a universal practice. Crucially, the information only described the location as a “store” and the method of entry as breaking the lock of its door, which implied no one was inside at the time. The failure to specifically allege that the store was inhabited at the time of the robbery was fatal to applying the heavier penalty under Article 508.

Therefore, the penalty was reduced from *presidio mayor* to *presidio correccional*. The appellant was sentenced to four years, nine months, and ten days of *presidio correccional*. The judgment was affirmed in all other respects.