GR L 9626; (May, 1957) (Digest)
G.R. No. L-9626 May 22, 1957
THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. ARNULFO ALVAREZ, defendant-appellant.
FACTS
Appellant Arnulfo Alvarez was accused of robbery in an inhabited house before the Court of First Instance of Manila. The information alleged that between January 15 and 16, 1955, in Manila, he willfully entered the store and house at No. 1106 San Fernando St., Binondo, which was the dwelling of Tiong Cuanco and his family, by passing through the top of the main door after forcibly cutting the iron grills. Once inside, with intent to gain and without consent, he took and carried away 20 pieces of Optimus gas lanterns valued at P600 and 5 pieces of Petromax gas lanterns valued at P160, belonging to Tiong Cuanco, causing total damage of P760. Upon arraignment, Alvarez pleaded guilty. The trial court, considering his plea as a mitigating circumstance, sentenced him to an indeterminate penalty of six years of prision mayor, as minimum, to twelve years and one day of reclusion temporal, as maximum, ordered the return of the stolen articles or indemnification of P729.60, and payment of costs. Alvarez appealed, questioning only the propriety of the penalty imposed.
ISSUE
Whether the penalty imposed by the trial court is proper.
RULING
No, the penalty imposed was not proper and is modified. The crime committed, as alleged in the information and to which the appellant pleaded guilty, falls under Article 299 of the Revised Penal Code for robbery in an inhabited house. Since the value of the stolen property (P760) exceeds P250 and the appellant was not armed when he committed the crime, the proper penalty is the minimum period of prision mayor, which ranges from six years and one day to eight years. Applying the Indeterminate Sentence Law, the Supreme Court modified the penalty. The appellant is sentenced to an indeterminate penalty of two years and four months of prision correccional, as minimum, to eight years of prision mayor, as maximum. The Court rejected the appellant’s contention that he was entitled to a fixed penalty based on his claims of being a first-time offender, not molesting the family, and being unarmed, holding that these do not constitute legal grounds to avoid the application of the Indeterminate Sentence Law, which is favorable to him. The appealed decision was affirmed in all other respects.