G.R. No. 48526 , December 13, 1941
EL PUEBLO DE FILIPINAS, querellante y apelado, vs. MIGUEL MANANGAN, acusado y apelante.

FACTS

This is an appeal by the accused, Miguel Manangan, against the sentence of the Court of First Instance of Nueva Ecija, which condemned him to suffer an indeterminate penalty of 3 years, 6 months, and 21 days to 6 years. The defense raises only one issue in this instance: that the imposed penalty should be reduced for not conforming to the law, imposing on the accused an indeterminate penalty of 4 months and 1 day to 3 years, 6 months, and 21 days. The Government, represented by the Solicitor General, contends the opposite, arguing that instead of being reduced, the penalty should be increased. The Government’s position is based on the crime committed being theft of large cattle, and that the penalty to be imposed, according to Article 310 of the Revised Penal Code as amended by Commonwealth Act No. 417 , is the maximum degree of the penalty prescribed in said Article 310. The value of the stolen cattle amounts to P70.00.

ISSUE

What is the correct penalty to be imposed for the crime of theft of large cattle under Article 310 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended?

RULING

The Supreme Court modified the appealed judgment. The crime is one of theft of large cattle. Absent the other qualifying circumstances mentioned in Article 310, the penalty would be arresto mayor in its medium period to prision correccional in its minimum period. However, since the things stolen are large cattle, the penalty immediately superior in degree to said penalty of arresto mayor in its medium period to prision correccional in its minimum period must be imposed—that is, prision correccional in its medium period to prision mayor in its minimum period—applying this penalty in its maximum degree. The penalty immediately inferior to the maximum degree of the penalty of prision correccional in its medium period to prision mayor in its minimum period is the medium degree of the same penalty (citing Pueblo contra Co Pao and Pueblo contra Haloot). The Court did not find merit in the Solicitor General’s recommendation to appreciate the aggravating circumstance of nocturnity, as the appealed decision contained no facts demonstrating that the night was purposely sought by the accused to commit the crime. Consequently, the Court modified the sentence and condemned the accused-appellant to an indeterminate penalty of 4 years and 3 months of prision correccional to 8 years of prision mayor, and to pay the costs.