G.R. No. L-9609, L-9610, and L-9611; October 2, 1914
THE UNITED STATES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. ANASTACIO AVILLAR, PEDRO NIEGOS, and MAXIMIANO NIEGOS, defendants-appellants.

FACTS:
Three separate criminal cases for theft of carabaos (Cases Nos. 2370, 2373, and 2374 from the Court of First Instance of Nueva Ecija) were consolidated for trial by agreement of the parties. A single judgment was rendered for all three cases. The defendants were Anastacio Avillar, Pedro Niegos, and Maximiano Niegos (along with two others who were acquitted). The facts for each case, as proven, are:
1. Case No. 2370 (G.R. No. L-9609): On April 23, 1913, a carabao valued at P160, owned by Pedro Corpus and in the care of Pedro Sinuto, was stolen. It was later found in Mangatarem, Pangasinan, in the possession of Tomas Borja and Luisa Corpus, who testified they bought it from Anastacio Avillar, who was accompanied by Maximiano Niegos.
2. Case No. 2373 (G.R. No. L-9610): On April 22, 1913, three carabaos (a carabao, a caraballa, and her calf) with a total value of P515, owned by Francisca Espiritu, Faustino Delo, and Aniceto Pascua, were stolen. These animals were also recovered in Mangatarem. Witnesses testified that they were sold in that town by Anastacio Avillar, accompanied by Pedro and Maximiano Niegos.
3. Case No. 2374 (G.R. No. L-9611): On March 19, 1913, a carabao valued at P170, owned by Juan B. Santiago, was stolen. It was likewise found in Mangatarem, having been sold by Anastacio Avillar to Simplicio Pagtaconan. Testimony indicated Avillar was accompanied by the Niegos brothers when selling carabaos in Mangatarem on several occasions.

The trial court convicted Anastacio Avillar, Pedro Niegos, and Maximiano Niegos, sentencing them in a single, defective judgment to “five years in Bilibid” and to pay one-fifth of the costs each. The judgment’s phrasing led to confusion on whether the penalty was five years total or five years for each case (totaling fifteen years). Anastacio Avillar later withdrew his appeal.

ISSUE:
1. What are the proper penalties to be imposed on the appellants for the crimes of theft in the three cases?
2. Was the form of the trial court’s judgment valid?

RULING:
The Supreme Court set aside the trial court’s judgment with respect to appellants Pedro Niegos and Maximiano Niegos (Anastacio Avillar’s appeal having been withdrawn). The Court held:

1. On the Proper Penalties: Applying Article 518 of the Penal Code, as modified by Act No. 2030 (which required raising the penalty to the next higher degree), the Court imposed the following presidio correccional sentences:
In Case No. 2370 (value P160): Four years, two months, and one day.
In Case No. 2373 (value P515): Five years, five months, and one day.
In Case No. 2374 (value P170): Four years, two months, and one day.
The appellants were also sentenced to the accessory penalties under Article 58 of the Penal Code and to pay one-fifth of the costs in each instance.

2. On the Form of the Judgment: The trial court’s judgment was defective and invalid. It failed to specify the penalty in the manner required by law. A proper sentence must state the specific penalty (e.g., presidio correccional), its duration, and the degree (minimum, medium, or maximum) in which it is imposed. A generic sentence of “five years in Bilibid” is legally insufficient. The Supreme Court emphasized the duty of trial courts to strictly follow the Penal Code’s requirements in formulating sentences.

Separate Opinion: Justice Moreland concurred, specifically emphasizing the defect in the trial court’s sentence for omitting the name of the penalty (presidio correccional*) and failing to specify its degree.