[ G. R. No. 10690. August 17, 1915 ] 31 Phil. 310
[ G. R. No. 10690. August 17, 1915 ]
THE UNITED STATES, PLAINTIFF AND APPELLEE, VS. RKGINO NORIEGA AND GORGONIA TOBIAS, DEFENDANTS. REGINO NORIEGA, APPELLANT. D E C I S I O N
JOHNSON, J.:
The present criminal proceedings were commenced by the presentation of a complaint by Gaudencio Tesoro, the husband of the said Gorgonia Tobias, in the court of the justice of the peace of the municipality of Santa Cruz. A preliminary examination was held by said justice of the peace and the defendants were held for trial by the Court of First Instance. Later the cause was brought on for trial in the Court of First Instance. The defendants were duly arraigned. Upon arraignment each plead not guilty. Later the defendant, Gorgonia Tobias, asked for and obtained permission from the court to withdraw her plea of not guilty and to substitute therefor the plea of guilty. The trial proceeded against the defendant, Regino Noriega, at the close of which the Honorable Pedro Concepcion, judge, found each of the defendants guilty of the crime charged and sentenced the defendant, Regino Noriega, to be imprisoned for a period of five years of prision correctional, with the accessory penalties provided for by law, to indemnify the offended person in the sum of P500, and in case of insolvency to suffer subsidiary imprisonment in accordance with the provisions of the law, and to pay one-half the costs. Gorgonia Tobias was sentenced to be imprisoned for a period of one year and six months of prision correctional with the accessory penalties provided for by the law, and to pay one-half the costs. From that sentence the defendant Regino Noriega appealed to this court and made several assignments of error. All of the assignments of error relating to the appellant present questions of fact only. An examination of the record brought to this court shows, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the defendant and appellant is guilty of the crime charged in the complaint. In view of the very careful analysis of the proof made by the lower court we find no reason now for analyzing the same again. The defendant and appellant has been informed of the facts upon which the lower court relied for its conclusions. A restatement of the facts, in our judgment, can serve no good purpose. There is one question, however, presented by the decision of the lower court which neither the appellant nor the appellee has discussed. The lower court imposed a tine of indemnity against the appellant in the sum of P500. We are unable to find any provision of law justifying a judgment of indemnity in cases like the present. There was no foundation laid in the complaint for indemnity neither was there any proof adduced during the trial of the cause supporting the conclusion of the lower court in that respect. That part of the sentence of, the lower court must therefore be revoked. After a careful examination of the evidence brought to this court and considering the fact that the defendant had been treated with special confidence by the offended person, by taking him into his house and furnishing him with food and lodging, we are of the opinion that that fact should be treated as a special aggravating circumstance, and that the defendant should be punished with the maximum penalty provided for by the law. The sentence of five years of imprisonment fixed by the lower court is within the maximum grade. It is, therefore, hereby ordered and decreed that a judgment be entered sentencing the defendant to be imprisoned for a period of five years of prision correctional, with the accessory penalties of the law, and to pay the costs of this action and one-half the costs in the lower court. So ordered. Arellano, C. J., Torres, Carson, Trent, and Araullo, JJ., concur.