Supreme Court decision · Criminal Law

People v. Silverio

G.R. No. L-45346 · Promulgated January 30, 1937 · Ponente: Abad Santos

In brief

This case is about the conviction and sentencing of Engracia Silverio for estafa, with discussion on penalty and effect of plea of guilty as mitigating circumstance.

Plea of Guilty, Penalty, Mitigating Circumstances, Prision Correccional, Embezzlement

Related cases

Full text

Republic of the Philippines
SUPREME COURT
Manila

EN BANC

G.R. No. L-45346             January 30, 1937

THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee,
vs. ENGRACIA SILVERIO (alias ENGRACIA DE SANTOS, ENGRACIA SANTOS), defendant-appellant.

Eriberto de Silva for appellant. Undersecretary of Justice Melencio for appellee.

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 circumstances of her having entered a plea of guilty. This contention is without merit. The amount alleged in the information to have been embezzled or misappropriated 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 circumstances of plea of guilty, the prescribed penalty should be impose in its minimum period, that is, from four months and one days of arresto mayor to one year of prision correccional. It is within the sound discretion of 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 from is, therefore, affirmed with costs against the appellant. So ordered.

Avanceña, C.J., Villa-Real, Imperial, Diaz, Laurel and Concepcion, JJ., concur.