G.R. No. 45198 - People vs. De Jesus y Javier

Basilio de Jesus y Javier was charged with the theft of an umbrella and a buri hat valued at P2.65, allegedly committed on April 28, 1936.
The theft occurred in the context of criminal case No. 52270 before the Court of First Instance of Manila.

The lower court convicted the appellant of theft, imposing a sentence of one month and one day of arresto mayor, which is within the minimum period prescribed by law (one month and one day to four months, with the minimum period being from one month and one day to two months).
As the appellant was found to be a habitual delinquent—having previous convictions:

Convicted on January 4, 1933 for theft (one month and one day of imprisonment).
Convicted on November 13, 1935 for qualified theft (two months and one day of imprisonment), with the last release on January 10, 1936.

In addition to the principal penalty, an additional penalty of two years, four months, and one day of prision correctional (with accessory penalties) was imposed based on the provisions of subsection 5, paragraph (a) of Article 62, Revised Penal Code.

The appellant voluntarily confessed prior to the presentation of the prosecution's evidence, counted as a mitigating circumstance under Article 13, subsection 7, of the Revised Penal Code.
The absence of any aggravating circumstance in the information (other than habitual delinquency) was noted, which supported the imposition of the minimum principal penalty.
Despite the mitigating circumstance, the recidivism inherent in the appellant’s status as a habitual delinquent warranted the additional penalty for repeat offenses.

The appellant’s counsel de oficio recommended affirming the sentence as imposed by the lower court, arguing that the penalty reached the minimum prescribed by law for the offense—implying no room for reduction.
The Solicitor-General, however, contended that the appellant's habitual delinquency (recidivism) should have been taken into consideration to increase the principal penalty from the minimum of the medium period to two months and one day.
A key legal issue raised was whether recidivism should simultaneously influence both the principal penalty and the additional penalty, potentially leading to double penalization for the same aggravating circumstance.

Whether the penalty for theft should be calculated solely on the basis of the prescribed minimum period given the mitigating circumstance of voluntary confession, or whether habitual delinquency (recidivism) warrants an automatic increase of the penalty.

Should the aggravating circumstance of recidivism be counted additionally when imposing the principal penalty or only once through the additional penalty?
Is it just to impose two separate penalties for what is essentially one aggravating circumstance?

How should the rules regarding aggravating and mitigating circumstances under the Revised Penal Code be harmonized in a case where the offender is a habitual delinquent?

Does habitual delinquency inherently entail recidivism to such an extent that it justifies the imposition of both a principal and an additional penalty?
Whether the principle embodied in "non bis in idem" (not imposing double penalties for the same fact) applies to the consideration of recidivism in determining both penalties.