G.R. No. L-20111 September 29, 1964
THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. DANILO E. VARGAS, defendant-appellant.

FACTS

Danilo E. Vargas, along with two others, was charged with robbery for unlawfully entering the Pasig Elementary School at night, forcibly sawing an iron window bar, and stealing a typewriter and an adding machine valued at P1,250.00. After his co-accused Alfredo Ulanday pleaded guilty, Vargas initially entered a plea of not guilty. However, at the scheduled trial, Vargas, through counsel, moved to withdraw his not guilty plea and substitute it with a plea of guilty to the crime as charged. The trial court accepted the plea and rendered a judgment finding him guilty beyond reasonable doubt, sentencing him to an indeterminate penalty of 2 years and 4 months of prision correccional minimum to 6 years of prision correccional maximum.
Vargas’s counsel moved for reconsideration, arguing that the penalty imposed was improper. Counsel contended that Vargas was entitled to two mitigating circumstances: minority, as he was 17 years old at the time of the offense, and his plea of guilty. It was argued that with these mitigants, the applicable penalty under the Indeterminate Sentence Law should be significantly lower, specifically from 1 month and 1 day of arresto mayor to 2 years and 4 months of prision correccional. The trial court denied the motion, prompting the instant appeal solely on the issue of the proper penalty.

ISSUE

Whether the trial court erred in imposing the penalty on appellant Danilo E. Vargas by not correctly appreciating the mitigating circumstances of minority and plea of guilty in the application of the Revised Penal Code and the Indeterminate Sentence Law.

RULING

The Supreme Court modified the penalty, affirming the conviction but correcting the legal computation. The crime committed was robbery under Article 299 of the Revised Penal Code. As the information did not allege the accused were armed and the value taken exceeded P250, the prescribed penalty was prision mayor (6 years and 1 day to 12 years). This penalty was correctly reduced by one degree to prision correccional (6 months and 1 day to 6 years) due to the mitigating circumstance of minority, pursuant to Article 68(2) of the Revised Penal Code.
The Court further applied the Indeterminate Sentence Law. From the penalty of prision correccional, the law authorizes a reduction by another degree to determine the minimum term, which is arresto mayor (1 month and 1 day to 6 months). The mitigating circumstance of a plea of guilty was also properly considered in fixing the precise periods within these ranges. Adopting a modification from the Solicitor General’s recommendation, the Supreme Court imposed an indeterminate penalty of 6 months of arresto mayor as the minimum, to 3 years, 6 months, and 21 days of prision correccional as the maximum. The decision was affirmed in all other respects.