January 1937 - Philippine Supreme Court Decisions/Resolutions
Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence
Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1937 > January 1937 Decisions >
G.R. No. 45346 January 30, 1937 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ENGRACIA SILVERIO
064 Phil 67:
064 Phil 67:
FIRST DIVISION
[G.R. No. 45346. January 30, 1937.]
THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. ENGRACIA SILVERIO (alias ENGRACIA DE SANTOS, ENGRACIA SANTOS), Defendant-Appellant.
Eriberto de Silva for Appellant.
Undersecretary of Justice Melencio for Appellee.
SYLLABUS
1. "ESTAFA" ; PENALTY. — When the amount embezzled or misappropriate is P205, the penalty prescribed for the offense is arresto mayor in its maximum period to prision correccional in its minimum period.
2. ID.; ID.; MITIGATING CIRCUMSTANCE OF PLEA OF GUILTY. — When a defendant pleads guilty to the charge of having embezzled or misappropriated P205 entrusted to his care, the penalty prescribed by law for the offense should be imposed in its minimum period, or from four months and one day of arresto mayor to one year of prision correccional.
3. ID.; ID.; ID.; JUDICIAL DISCRETION. — It is with in the sound discretion of the trial court to fix the penalty within the range allowed by law, and a penalty of six months and one day of prision correccional imposed on a defendant who pleaded guilty to the charge of having misappropriated P205 entrusted to his care, is within the proper range.
2. ID.; ID.; MITIGATING CIRCUMSTANCE OF PLEA OF GUILTY. — When a defendant pleads guilty to the charge of having embezzled or misappropriated P205 entrusted to his care, the penalty prescribed by law for the offense should be imposed in its minimum period, or from four months and one day of arresto mayor to one year of prision correccional.
3. ID.; ID.; ID.; JUDICIAL DISCRETION. — It is with in the sound discretion of the trial court to fix the penalty within the range allowed by law, and a penalty of six months and one day of prision correccional imposed on a defendant who pleaded guilty to the charge of having misappropriated P205 entrusted to his care, is within the proper range.
D E C I S I O N
ABAD SANTOS, J.:
Having pleaded guilty to an information charging her with the crime of estafa, the appellant was sentenced by the Court of First Instance of Manila to six months and one day of prision correccional, to indemnify the offended party in the sum of P205, with subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency, and to pay the costs.
In support of this appeal it is now contended that the lower court erred in not appreciating in favor of the appellant the mitigating circumstance of her having entered a plea of guilty. This contention is without merit. The amount alleged in the information to have been embezzled or misappropriate by the appellant is P205. The penalty prescribed for the offense thus committed is arresto mayor in its maximum period to prision correccional in its minimum period. (Revised Penal Code, article 315, case 3.) Appreciating in favor of the appellant the mitigating circumstance of plea of guilty, the prescribed penalty should be imposed in its minimum period, that is, from four months and one day of arresto mayor to one year of prision correccional. It is within the sound discretion of the trial court to fix the penalty within the range allowed by law. The penalty of six months and one day of prision correccional imposed upon the appellant is within the proper range.
The judgment appealed form is, therefore, affirmed with costs against the appellant. So ordered.
Avanceña, C.J., Villa-Real, Imperial, Diaz, Laurel and Concepcion, JJ., concur.
In support of this appeal it is now contended that the lower court erred in not appreciating in favor of the appellant the mitigating circumstance of her having entered a plea of guilty. This contention is without merit. The amount alleged in the information to have been embezzled or misappropriate by the appellant is P205. The penalty prescribed for the offense thus committed is arresto mayor in its maximum period to prision correccional in its minimum period. (Revised Penal Code, article 315, case 3.) Appreciating in favor of the appellant the mitigating circumstance of plea of guilty, the prescribed penalty should be imposed in its minimum period, that is, from four months and one day of arresto mayor to one year of prision correccional. It is within the sound discretion of the trial court to fix the penalty within the range allowed by law. The penalty of six months and one day of prision correccional imposed upon the appellant is within the proper range.
The judgment appealed form is, therefore, affirmed with costs against the appellant. So ordered.
Avanceña, C.J., Villa-Real, Imperial, Diaz, Laurel and Concepcion, JJ., concur.
