Case Digest (G.R. No. L-20139)
Case Digest (G.R. No. L-20139)
Facts:
The People of the Philippines v. Segundo Marquez y Castro, G.R. No. L-20139. May 19, 1965, the Supreme Court En Banc, Zaldivar, J., writing for the Court.The criminal information in the Court of First Instance of Manila charged Reynaldo Layog y Cadayday, Segundo Marquez y Castro (appellant), and Fermin Caina y del Mundo with theft of equipment, materials and tools belonging to the Manila Electric Railroad & Light Co. (Meralco), the stolen property being valued at P3,500.00. Upon arraignment the three accused pleaded not guilty, but on the hearing date they sought and were permitted to withdraw that plea and instead pleaded guilty to the lesser offense of accessory after the fact. The prosecution did not object and recommended that the minimum penalty prescribed by law for the pleaded offense be imposed.
The trial court found the three accused guilty as accessories after the fact and sentenced each to four (4) months and one (1) day of arresto mayor and ordered each to pay one‑third of the costs; the stolen property having been recovered was ordered returned to Meralco. Only Segundo Marquez y Castro appealed the sentence and was allowed to prosecute the appeal as a pauper. The appeal was originally taken to the Court of Appeals.
Because the question involved was purely one of law, the Court of Appeals forwarded the records to the Supreme Court pursuant to Sections 17 and 31 of the Judiciary Act of 1948, as amended. The appellant insisted that, given the P3,500 valuation, Article 309(3) of the Revised Penal Code fixed prision correccional (minimum and medium periods) as the penalty for the principal theft, and that as an accessory after the fact his penalty should be reduced by two degrees under Article 53, yielding a more lenient penalty — the appellant relied on Jose Cristobal v. The People of the Philippines. The Solicitor General agreed the trial court's sentence exceeded the correct legal range and recommended reduction to one (1) month and one (1) day of arresto mayor.
Issues:
- Did the trial court err in imposing four (4) months and one (1) day of arresto mayor on appellant instead of a lower penalty computed under Article 309(3) of the Revised Penal Code in relation to Article 53 and Article 27(4)?
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)