Case Digest (G.R. No. L-36461)
Facts:
People of the Philippines v. Segundino Haloot, G.R. No. 45490, September 15, 1937, the Supreme Court En Banc, Avancena, C.J., writing for the Court.The information charged Segundino Haloot with robbery in an inhabited place (article 299, Revised Penal Code) allegedly committed on or about January 16, 1937, in Manila: Haloot purportedly entered the residence of J. H. Forest through a window by breaking the wire nettings and stole jewelry and other articles with an aggregate value of P70. The information further alleged that the accused was "thrice a recidivist" under the Revised Penal Code, listing three prior theft convictions dated in October 1934.
The trial court convicted Haloot of the robbery charged and imposed the penalty corresponding to robbery without arms where the value did not exceed P250 — the medium period of prision correccional — and, additionally, sentenced him as a habitual delinquent to six years and one day of prision mayor. The court applied the Indeterminate Sentence Law (Act No. 4103) in fixing the minimum of the indeterminate sentence.
On appeal to the Supreme Court, the primary controversies were (a) the correct determination of the "penalty next lower in degree" for fixing the minimum under the Indeterminate Sentence Law when the prescribed penalty is a single period of a divisible penalty, and (b) whether the three prior convictions (committed on the same date) properly made the accused a habitual delinquent. The Supreme Court rendered judgment affirming the appealed conviction but modified the sentence by eliminating the additional habitual-delinquent penalty and by fixing the indeterminate minimum within the penalty next low...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Did the three prior convictions, committed on the same date, qualify Haloot as a habitual delinquent for purposes of imposing the additional habitual-delinquent penalty?
- What is the correct "penalty next lower in degree" to be used in fixing the minimum of the indeterminate sentence under the Indeterminate Sentence Law when the prescribed penalty consists of a single period of a divisible penalty (here: the med...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)