G.R. No.

217722, September 26, 2018 belonging to said complainant, to her damage and
prejudice.
JOMAR ABLAZA Y CAPARAS, Petitioner, v. PEOPLE OF
THE PHILIPPINES, Respondent. CONTRARY TO LAW.4

DECISION
Petitioner pleaded not guilty to the charge.5 Lauzon, who
DEL CASTILLO, J.: was arrested after the conclusion of the pre-trial, also
entered a plea of not guilty and adopted the pre-trial
This Petition for Review on Certiorari assails the March proceedings insofar as petitioner was
20, 2015 Decision1 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA- concerned.6 Trial then ensued.
G.R. CR No. 36343, which affirmed with modification the
December 3, 2013 Judgment2 of the Regional Trial Court The prosecution presented as its lone witness the victim,
(RTC), Branch 75, Olongapo City in Crim. Case No. 384- Rosario S. Snyder (Snyder). Snyder narrated that at
10 finding Jomar Ablaza y Caparas (petitioner) and his around 8:30 a.m. of June 29, 2010, she was using her
co-accused Jay Lauzon y Farrales (Lauzon) guilty beyond cellphone7 while walking along Jolo
reasonable doubt of Robbery with Violence Against or Street, Barangay Barreto, Olongapo City8 when a
Intimidation of Persons under paragraph 5, Article 294 of motorcycle with two male persons on board stopped
the Revised Penal Code (RPC). beside her.9 The backrider then suddenly grabbed her
three necklaces:10 one big necklace worth P43,800.00
Factual Antecedents and two other necklaces each with pendants worth
P13,500.00 and P12,800.00, respectively,11 the prices of
Petitioner and Lauzon were charged in an which were evidenced by the receipts issued by Eleanor
Information3 which reads: Pawnshop and Jewelry Store where she bought
them.12 Snyder further recounted that after grabbing her
That on or about the twenty-ninth (29th) day of July, necklaces, the two male persons moved a short
2010, in the City of Olongapo, Philippines, and within the distance13 and then looked back at her to check if all her
jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named necklaces were taken. Recovering from shock, Snyder
accused, conspiring, confederating together and mutually managed to shout and ask for help. A tricycle passed by
helping one another, with intent to gain, and by means and so the male persons on board the motorcycle
of force and violence against the person of Rosario S. immediately sped away.14 Snyder asked the tricycle
Snyder, did then and there willfully, unlawfully, driver to run after the snatchers but he unfortunately
feloniously and forcibly grab, take, steal and carry away missed them.15 Thus, Snyder went to the Police Station
three (3) pcs. of necklaces worth P43,800.00, to report the incident.16
P12,800.00 and P13,500.00. respectively, or in the total
amount of P70,100.00 x x x Philippine Currency, While at the police station, Snyder was shown some
pictures from which she identified petitioner as the driver was involved in two more cases of robbery and one for
of the motorcycle.17 Snyder was certain about the theft.33
identity of petitioner since she had a good look at the
robbers' faces when they looked back at her before Ruling of the Regional Trial Court
speeding away and also because petitioner was not
wearing any helmet at that time.18 In its Judgment34 dated December 3, 2013, the RTC lent
credence to Snyder's testimony for being candid,
On the same day, a policeman accompanied Snyder to unwavering, clear, coherent and also because she was
the house of petitioner19 who, when asked, denied any without any improper motive to wrongly implicate
involvement in the snatching incident and claimed that petitioner and Lauzon. The trial court also found the
he was asleep at that time.20 After a while, Snyder and elements of the crime of robbery, to wit: (1) that there is
the policeman discovered that Lauzon, whom Snyder taking of personal property; (2) the personal property
earlier learned to be the backrider,21 was also in belongs to another; (3) the taking is with animus
petitioner's house hiding under the kitchen lucrandi; and (4) the taking is with violence against or
sink.22 Unfortunately, Snyder was not able to recover her intimidation of persons or force upon things, to be
necklaces.23 present, ratiocinating as follows:

Petitioner served as the sole witness for the defense. There is taking for sure. The act of the accused riding in
Petitioner claimed that on the date and time of the tandem [in] forcibly grabbing the necklaces of Snyder
incident, he and Lauzon were asleep in his house from her neck exhibits not only animus lucrandi, but also
in Purok 6, Lower Kalaklan in front of Ocean View24 since violent taking. The accused did not simply "snatch" the
they had a drinking spree the night before.25 Petitioner necklaces; they grabbed them from Snyder's neck. The
only woke up26 when a policeman arrived asking him if accused ran away with the necklaces in an arrogant
he was Jomar Ablaza.27 Upon confirming that he was display of their intention to deprive Snyder of possession
Jomar Ablaza, the policeman told him that a woman and dominion of her necklaces. And finally, the necklaces
wanted to see him.28 However, upon seeing petitioner, belonged to Snyder. She had receipts to prove her
the woman told the policeman that he was not the one ownership. She bought them at a jewelry store.35
since the person she was looking for was "tisoy" with
tattoo.29 Upon hearing this, the policeman reminded the
woman that petitioner already had a record with the Petitioner and Lauzon were likewise found to have
police.30 The policeman and the woman then simply conspired with each other in committing the crime
left.31 After two months, however, petitioner was charged.
arrested in connection with this case.32
Accordingly, the RTC adjudged petitioner and Lauzon as
On cross-examination, petitioner testified that he did not follows:
know Snyder prior to the alleged incident and that he
WHEREFORE, the court finds JAY LAUZON y FARRALES looking for a mestizo who was sporting a tattoo which
and JOMAR ABLAZA y CAPARAS guilty beyond reasonable thus rendered doubtful Snyder's identification of
doubt of Robbery defined and penalized under Article 294 petitioner. Third, there were several inconsistencies in
(5) of the Revised Penal Code, and sentences them to the testimonies of Snyder which tended to demonstrate
each suffer the penalty of imprisonment ranging from the fickleness of her memory. Lastly, petitioner found it
four (4) years and two (2) months as minimum to eight baffling why he was arrested only after two months and
(8) years and twenty (20) days as maximum. not immediately after a policeman and Snyder went to
his house on the day itself of the incident. To petitioner,
The accused are also ordered solidarily to pay Rosario all these cast doubt on his supposed guilt.
Snyder the amount of Php70,100.00 with interest at
6% per annum until the full amount is paid; and to pay Petitioner likewise argued that, even assuming he
the cost of suit. committed the acts imputed against him, the RTC should
have convicted him only of theft citing People v.
SO DECIDED.36 Concepcion40 where the accused therein who snatched
the victim's bag was held guilty of theft and not robbery.

Petitioner filed a Notice of Appeal37 which was given due The CA, however, was not swayed by petitioner's
course in an Order38 dated December 17, 2013. asseverations and found no merit in the appeal. It saw
no reason not to believe Snyder's testimony and likewise
Ruling of the Court of Appeals found all the elements of robbery obtaining. In
debunking petitioner's claim that the element of violence
In his Brief,39 petitioner argued that the RTC erred in was absent, the CA stated that the only way that the
giving credence to Snyder's testimony which was necklaces could have been taken from Snyder was
incredible and full of inconsistencies. Petitioner pointed through the use of violence and physical force. The CA
out that it was unlikely that, after grabbing the necklaces also concurred with the RTC's finding of conspiracy.
and speeding away, he and Lauzon would still look back However, it found fit to modify the penalty decreed by
at their alleged victim, Snyder. According to him, logic the trial court and clarified that the 6% interest imposed
and common experience dictate that they immediately on the monetary award should be reckoned from the
leave the crime scene and not look back. Second, Snyder date of finality of the judgment until fully paid.
herself admitted that she was shocked; hence, it was
highly unlikely that she would have the emotional The dispositive portion of the assailed CA Decision reads:
stability and mental acuity to accurately remember the
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the appeal is hereby
robbers' facial features. Also, Snyder did not at the
DENIED. The Judgment dated December 3, 2013 of the
outset describe the physical appearance of the persons
Regional Trial Court, Branch 75, Olongapo City is
who robbed her; instead, she identified petitioner only
AFFIRMED WITH MODIFICATION in that accused-
after she was shown the pictures. Moreover, Snyder was
appellant Jomar Abluza y Caparas is sentenced to suffer sustain petitioner's conviction. While petitioner admits
imprisonment of four (4) years and two (2) months that a lone witness' testimony may be sufficient to
of prision correccional, as minimum, to eight (8) years convict an accused, this is only true when the testimony
of prision mayor, as maximum. He is further ordered to is clear, consistent, and credible, which is not the case
pay private complainant Rosario Snyder interest on the here. Also, while a denial cannot overcome a positive
award of civil liability assessed at the legal rate of six identification of the accused, the positive identification
percent (6%) per annum from date of finality of this must first come from a credible witness and the witness's
judgment until fully paid. story must be believable and inherently contrived, which
again is not true in this case. These, according to
SO ORDERED.41 petitioner, negate his guilt beyond reasonable doubt.

Even assuming that he committed the acts imputed

In view of the above, petitioner is now before this Court against him, petitioner contends that he may only be
through this Petition for Review on Certiorari imputing held liable for theft. He disagrees with the CA when it
upon the CA the following errors: held that the only way that the necklaces could be taken
from Snyder was through the use of violence and
X X X THE COURT OF APPEALS OR GRAVELY ERRED IN physical force. Notably, Snyder testified that her
CONVICTING THE PETITIONER FOR THE CRIME necklaces were grabbed from her. However, a necklace
CHARGED DESPITE THE FACT THAT HIS GUILT [HAD] can be "grabbed" and taken away without the use of
NOT BEEN PROVEN BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT. violence. In fact, Snyder did not at all allege that she was
pushed or otherwise harmed a by the persons who took
ASSUMING ARGUENDO THAT THE PETITIONER her necklaces. In this regard, petitioner once again
COMMITTED THE ALLEGED ACTS. THE COURT OF invokes the ruling in Concepcion which he believes to be
APPEALS GRAVELY ERRED IN FINDING HIM LIABLE FOR squarely applicable to his case.
ROBBERY INSTEAD OF THEFT.42
In sum, petitioner prays that he be acquitted of the crime
charged or, in the alternative, that he be held liable only
for theft.
Petitioner's Arguments
Respondent's Arguments
Petitioner argues that the CA erred in relying on Snyder's
uncorroborated testimony concerning his identification as In its Comment,43 Respondent People of the Philippines,
one of the alleged robbers. Said testimony did not inspire through the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG), avers
belief since, aside from being highly contrary to human that Snyder was able to positively identify petitioner as
nature and experience, it was tainted with several she saw the faces of the perpetrators. This easily inspires
inconsistencies. Moreover, the same was insufficient to belief as the incident happened at around 8:30 a.m. or in
broad daylight; the robbers' faces were in open view; review of questions of fact because the Court is not a
and that they were just a short distance away from trier of facts."44 Notably here, the arguments advanced
Snyder when they looked back at her. Significantly, by petitioner to support his contention that his guilt was
Snyder made the identification from the photographs not proven beyond reasonable doubt assail Snyder's
shown to her just immediately after the incident. And, credibility as witness, specifically with respect to the
despite being shown several photographs of persons with latter's identification of him as one of the perpetrators,
police records, she was able to pinpoint petitioner as one which essentially is a question of fact. As held, if a
of the perpetrators. On the other hand, that Snyder was question posed requires the reevaluation of the credibility
allegedly looking for a "tisoy" was a mere allegation of of witnesses, the issue is factual.45 And, although there
petitioner. Anent the inconsistencies in Snyder's are several exceptions to the rule that factual questions
testimony, the OSG avers that the same referred to cannot be passed upon in a Rule 45 petition,46 the Court
trivial matters that did not affect her credibility. It, thus, does not find the existence of any in this case. At any
posits that the credible and convincing testimony of rate, "[t]he assessment of credibility of witnesses is a
Snyder sufficiently established the identity of petitioner task most properly within the domain of trial courts."47
as one of the perpetrators.
[T]he findings of the trial court carry great weight and
The OSG likewise asserts that petitioner was correctly respect due to the unique opportunity afforded them to
found guilty of robbery. According to it, Concepcion is not observe the witnesses when placed on the stand.
applicable to this case since therein, the victim testified Consequently, appellate courts will not overturn the
that her shoulder bag was snatched but no violence, factual findings of the trial court in the absence of facts
intimidation, or force was used against her by the or circumstances of weight and substance that would
perpetrators. However, here, Snyder testified that her affect the result of the case. Said rule finds an ever more
necklaces were not merely snatched but grabbed from stringent application where the said findings are
her. Hence, violence was used upon her person. In view sustained by the CA, as in the case at hand[.]48
of these, the OSG prays for the denial of the petition for
lack of merit. Accordingly, the Court shall not depart from the findings
of the RTC as affirmed by the CA on the matter of
Our Ruling Snyder's credibility as witness and that of her testimony
identifying petitioner as one of the perpetrators of the
crime.
There is partial merit in the petition.
Nevertheless, the Court finds that petitioner should be
"As a general rule, the Court's jurisdiction in a petition held liable only for theft. Indeed, the case of People v.
for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Concepcion49 is on all fours with the present case, viz.:
Court is limited to the review of pure questions of law.
Otherwise stated, a Rule 45 petition does not allow the
x x x Article 293 or the [Revised Penal Code (RPC)]
defines robbery as a crime committed by 'any person In People v. Omambong, the Court distinguished robbery
who, with intent to gain, shall take any personal properly from theft. The Court held:
belonging to another, by means of violence against or
intimidation of any person, or using force upon anything.' Had the appellant then run away, he would undoubtedly
xxx have been guilty of theft only, because the asportation
was not effected against the owner's will but only without
Theft, on the other hand, is committed by any person his consent; although, of course, there was some sort of
who, with intent to gain but without violence against or force used by the appellant in taking the money away
intimidation of persons nor force upon things, shall take from the owner.
the personal property of another without the latter's
consent. x x x xxxx

By definition in the RPC, robbery can be committed in What the record does show is that when the offended
three ways, by using: (a) violence against any person; party made an attempt to regain his money, the
(b) intimidation of any person; and/or (c) force upon appellant's companion used violence to prevent his
anything. Robbery by use of force upon things is succeeding.
provided under Articles 299 to 305 of the RPC.
xxxx
The main issue is whether the snatching of the shoulder
bag in this case is robbery or theft. Did Concepcion The crime committed is therefore robbery and not theft,
employ violence or intimidation upon persons, or force because personal violence was brought to bear upon the
upon things, when he snatched Acampado's shoulder offended party before he was definitely deprived of his
bag? money.

In People v. Dela Cruz, this Court found the accused

guilty of theft for snatching a basket containing jewelry, The prosecution failed to establish that Concepcion used
money and clothing, and taking off with it, while the violence, intimidation or force in snatching Acampado's
owners had their backs turned. shoulder bag. Acampado herself merely testified that
Concepcion snatched her shoulder bag which was
In People v. Tapang, this Court affirmed the conviction of hanging on her left shoulder. Acampado did not say that
the accused for frustrated theft because he stole a white Concepcion used violence, intimidation or force in
gold ring with diamond stones from the victim's pocket, snatching her shoulder bag. Given the facts,
which ring was immediately or subsequently recovered Concepcion's snatching of Acampado's shoulder bag
from the accused at or about the same time it was constitute the crime of theft, not robbery. x x
stolen. x50 (Citations omitted)
 A: While I was walking, a motorcycle stopped[,] x x x [on
Similarly in this case, Snyder's testimony was bereft of
any showing that petitioner and his co-accused used
board it were] the driver and a backrider.
violence or intimidation in taking her necklaces. She
merely stated that the perpetrators grabbed her
necklaces without mentioning that the latter made use of
violence or intimidation in grabbing them, viz.:
Q: Where did this motorcycle stop?
Q: Do you recall any untoward incident that happened
while walking on [July 29, 2010]? A: [Beside] me.

A: Yes, sir.

Q: In front of you or beside you?

Q: What is that incident? A: [Beside] me.

A: Suddenly somebody approached me and took my

necklace.

xxxx

xxxx

Q: How did these persons grab your necklace?

A: They suddenly grabbed my necklace and I was

Q: Can you tell us how these two persons approached shocked.51
you?

The OSG argues that the use of the word "grabbed", by

itself, shows that violence or physical force was "The elements of robbery are thus: (1) there is taking of
employed by the offenders in taking Snyders' necklaces. personal property; (2) the personal property belongs to
The Court, however, finds the argument to be a pure another; (3) the taking is with animus lucrandi; and (4)
play of semantics. Grab means to take or seize by or as if the taking is with violence against or intimidation of
by a sudden motion or grasp; to take hastily. 52 Clearly, persons or with force upon things."53
the same does not suggest the presence of violence or
physical force in the act; the connotation is on the Note that while the fourth requisite mentions "with
suddenness of the act of taking or seizing which cannot violence against or intimidation of persons" or "force
be readily equated with the employment of violence or upon things", only the phrase "with violence against or
physical force. Here, it was probably the suddenness of intimidation of persons" applies to the kinds of robbery
taking that shocked Snyder and not the presence of falling under Section One, Chapter One, Title Ten of the
violence or physical force since, as pointed out by RPC. The phrase "with force upon things", on the other
petitioner, Snyder did not at all allege that she was hand, applies to the kinds of robbery provided under
pushed or otherwise harmed by the persons who took Section Two thereof.
her necklaces.
As mentioned, the RTC convicted petitioner of simple
Besides, the use of force is not an element of the crime robbery under paragraph 5, Article 294, which m1icle
of simple robbery committed under paragraph 5, Article falls under Section One. Article 294 provides:
294 of the RPC.
ART 294. Robbery with violence against or intimidation of
The crime of robbery is found under Chapter One, Title persons. – Penalties. – Any person guilty of robbery with
Ten [Crimes Against Property] of the RPC. Chapter One is use of violence against or intimidation of any person shall
composed of two sections, to wit: Section One – Robbery suffer:
with violence against or intimidation of persons; and
Section Two – Robbery by the use of force upon things. 1. The penalty of from reclusion perpetua to death, when
by reason or on occasion of the robbery, the crime of
Robbery in general is defined under Article 293 of the homicide, shall have been committed; or when the
RPC as follows: robbery shall have been accompanied by rape or
intentional mutilation or arson.
Art. 293. Who are guilty of robbery. – Any person who,
with intent to gain, shall take any personal property 2. The penalty of reclusion temporal in its medium period
belonging to another, by means of violence against or to reclusion perpetua, when or if by reason or on
intimidation of any person, or using force upon anything, occasion of such robbery, any of the physical injuries
shall be guilty of robbery. penalized in subdivision 1 of Article 263 [Serious Physical
Injuries] shall have been inflicted.
3. The penalty of reclusion temporal, when by reason or intentional mutilation, or the physical injuries penalized
on occasion of the robbery, any of the physical injuries in subdivision 1 of Article 263 (par. 2); (c) robbery with
penalized in subdivision 2 of the article mentioned in the physical injuries penalized in subdivision 2 of Article 263
next preceding paragraph, shall have been inflicted. (par. 3); (d) robbery committed with unnecessary
violence or with physical injuries covered by subdivisions
4. The penalty of prision mayor in its maximum period 3 and 4 of Article 263 par. 4); and (e) robbery in other
to reclusion temporal in its medium period, if the cases, or simply robbery (par. 5), where the violence
violence or intimidation employed in the commission of against or intimidation of persons cannot be subsumed
the robbery shall have been carried to a degree clearly by, or where it is not sufficiently specified so as to fall
unnecessary for the commission of the crime, or when in under, the first four paragraphs.
the course of its execution. the offender shall have
inflicted upon any person not responsible for its Paragraphs one to four or Article 294 indisputably involve
commission any of the physical injuries covered by the use of violence against persons. The actual physical
subdivisions 3 and 4 of said Article 263. force inflicted results in death, rape, mutilation or the
physical injuries therein enumerated. The simple
5. The penalty of prision correccional in its robbery under paragraph five may cover physical
maximum period to prision mayor in its medium injuries not included in paragraphs two to four.
period in other cases. Thus, when less serious physical injuries or slight
physical injuries are inflicted upon the offended
party on the occasion of a robbery, the accused
Hence, in determining the existence of the fourth may be prosecuted for and convicted of robbery
requisite in cases of simple robbery under Article 294, under paragraph five.
courts should look into whether the taking of personal
property is with violence against or intimidation of It seems obvious that intimidation is not encompassed
persons and not on whether there was force. under paragraphs one to four since no actual physical
violence is inflicted; evidently then, it can only fall under
Now, on how to construe the phrase "by means of paragraph five.
violence against or intimidation of persons" as used in But what is meant by the word intimidation? It is defined
Article 294, the case of People v. Judge Alfeche, Jr.54 is in Black's Law Dictionary as 'unlawful coercion; extortion;
enlightening: duress; putting in fear'. To take, or attempt to take, by
intimidation means 'wilfully to take, or attempt to take,
Accordingly, the phrase 'by means of violence against or by putting in fear of bodily harm." As shown in United
intimidation of persons' in Article 312 must be construed States vs. Osorio material violence is not indispensable
to refer to the same phrase used in Article 94. There arc for there to be intimidation, intense fear produced in the
five classes of robbery under the latter, namely: (a) mind of the victim which restricts or hinders the exercise
robbery with homicide (par. 1); (b) robbery with rape, of the will is sufficient. x x x55
 stake.

Clearly, for the requisite of violence to obtain in cases of As to intimidation, its non-existence in this case is not in
simple robbery, the victim must have sustained less dispute. And even if otherwise, the Court will just the
serious physical injuries or slight physical injuries in the same rule against it. Per the victim's testimony, the act
occasion of the robbery. Or, as illustrated in the book of of the perpetrators in grabbing her necklaces so sudden.
Justice Luis B. Reyes, The Revised Penal Code (Book Hence, it could not have produced fear or duress in the
Two), there should be some kind of violence exerted to victim's mind as to deprive her of the exercise of her will.
accomplish the robbery, as when:
"Fundamental is the precept in all criminal prosecutions,
Snatching money from the hands of the victim that the constitutive acts of the offense must be
and pushing her to prevent her from recovering the established with unwavering exactitude and moral
seized property. certainty because this is the critical and only requisite to
a finding of guilt."57 Here, the fourth requisite of the
xxxx crime of robbery is not obtaining considering that the
prosecution failed to sufficiently establish that the taking
Where there is nothing in the evidence to show that of the necklaces was with violence against or intimidation
some kind of violence had been exerted to accomplish of persons. Accordingly, petitioner must be held liable
the snatching, and the offended party herself admitted only for the crime of theft, not robbery.
that she did not feel anything at the time her watch was
snatched from her left wrist the crime committed is not Under Article 309(3) of the RPC as amended by Republic
robbery but only on simple theft.56 Act No. 10951,58 any person guilty of theft shall be
punished by the penalty of prision correccional in its
minimum and medium periods, if the value of the
In this case, Snyder did not sustain any kind of injury at property stolen is more than P20,000.00 but does not
all. And as already mentioned, her testimony was bereft exceed P600,000.00. Since petitioner is guilty of the
of any showing that violence was used against her by crime of theft of property valued at P70,100.00 and, in
petitioner and his co-accused in that she was pushed, or the absence of any mitigating or aggravating
otherwise harmed on the occasion of the robbery. While circumstance, the maximum term of the penalty should
one can only imagine how pulling three necklaces at the be within the range of one (1) year, eight (8) months
same time from the victim's neck could not have caused and twenty-one (21) days to two (2) years, eleven (1)
any mark, bruise, or pain to the latter, suffice it to state months and ten (10) days of prision
that such a matter must have been adequately proved by correccional. Applying the Indeterminate Sentence Law,
the prosecution during trial as the Court cannot rely on the minimum term of the penalty shall be within the
mere assumptions, surmises, and conjectures especially range of the penalty next lower to that prescribed by the
when it is the life and liberty of the petitioner which is at RPC for the crime, which is arresto mayor in its medium
and maximum periods which ranges from two (2) months
and one (1) day to six (6) months. For this reason, the
Court imposes upon petitioner the indeterminate penalty
of six (6) months of arresto mayor as minimum, to two
(2) years, eleven (11) months and ten (10) days of
prision correccional as maximum.

WHEREFORE, the Petition for Review

on Certiorari is PARTIALLY GRANTED. The assailed
March 20, 2015 Decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-
G.R. CR No. 36343, which affirmed with modification the
December 3, 2013 Judgment of the Regional Trial Court,
Branch 75, Olongapo City in Criminal Case No. 384-10
finding petitioner Jomar Ablaza y Caparas guilty beyond
reasonable doubt of Robbery with Violence Against or
Intimidation of Persons under paragraph 5, Article 294 of
the Revised Penal Code, is MODIFIED in that he is
instead found GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of the
crime of THEFT and sentenced to suffer the
indeterminate penalty of six (6) months of arresto
mayor as minimum, to two (2) years, eleven (11)
months and ten (10) days of prision correccional as
maximum.

SO ORDERED