G.R. No. 27345 , August 12, 1927
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS, plaintiff-appellee, vs. GAUDENCIO BAGUYO, et al., defendants-appellants.

FACTS

The defendants-appellants (Gaudencio Baguyo, Flaviano Fernandez, Ruperto Gregorio, and Felix de Jesus) were charged with Robbery. The information alleged that they conspired and, using a car and taking advantage of nighttime, forced open the door of Dr. Florencio Buendia’s store in Bauan, Batangas, and carried away a safe containing money and jewels, along with various merchandise, with a total value of P1,180.76. The information further alleged that all accused were habitual delinquents, having been previously convicted multiple times for robbery and theft, and that the aggravating circumstances of nocturnity and recidivism were present. Upon arraignment, all accused pleaded guilty. The trial court convicted them of robbery under Article 508, paragraph 4 of the Penal Code (robbery in an inhabited house, public building, or edifice devoted to worship), with the mentioned aggravating circumstances, and applied Act No. 3062 (the Habitual Delinquency Law). Each was sentenced to eighteen years and one day of *cadena temporal*. The accused appealed.

ISSUE

1. Whether the trial court correctly classified the crime as robbery under Article 508, paragraph 4 of the Penal Code.
2. Whether Act No. 3062 (Habitual Delinquency Law) was correctly applied to all appellants.

RULING

1. On the Classification of the Crime: The Supreme Court disagreed with the trial court’s classification. Article 508, paragraph 4, applies to robbery committed in an *inhabited house*, public building, or edifice devoted to worship. The information only alleged the crime was committed in a “store.” The Court held that a store is not necessarily an inhabited house, and this essential element was not expressly alleged. Therefore, the crime should be classified under Article 512 (robbery in an uninhabited place). Since all appellants were recidivists (having at least two prior convictions), Article 514 mandates the imposition of the penalty in the next higher degree, which is *presidio mayor* in its minimum and medium periods. With the aggravating circumstance of nocturnity and no mitigating circumstance, the penalty should be imposed in its maximum degree (8 years, 8 months and 1 day to 10 years of *presidio mayor*).

2. On the Application of Act No. 3062 : The Court partially agreed with the trial court.
* For appellants Gaudencio Baguyo, Flaviano Fernandez, and Ruperto Gregorio: Act No. 3062 was correctly applied. The information’s allegation that they were habitual delinquents and violated Act No. 3062 was deemed sufficient under the doctrine in *People vs. Nayco*. Applying the law, an additional penalty of one-half of the principal penalty was to be added. Thus, for these three appellants, the principal penalty of 10 years of *presidio mayor* was increased by half (5 years), resulting in a total sentence of 15 years of *presidio mayor*.
* For appellant Felix de Jesus (alias Antonio Rivera): Act No. 3062 was not applicable. The records showed his two prior convictions (mentioned in the information) only resulted in a fine and were rendered on February 8, 1916. For recidivism to have the effect of applying Act No. 3062 , the new crime must be committed within five years after the last sentence was served or extinguished. This condition was not met in his case. Therefore, he was sentenced only to the principal penalty of 10 years of *presidio mayor*.

DISPOSITIVE PORTION:
The appealed judgment was modified. Appellants Gaudencio Baguyo, Flaviano Fernandez, and Ruperto Gregorio were each sentenced to fifteen (15) years of *presidio mayor*. Appellant Felix de Jesus (alias Antonio Rivera) was sentenced to ten (10) years of *presidio mayor*. All with the accessories of law and proportionate costs.