Case Digest (G.R. No. 48976)
Facts:
THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, charged MORO MACBUL, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT, with theft of two sacks of papers valued at P10 alleged to have been committed on March 9, 1943, in Jolo; appellant pleaded guilty.
The trial court noted two prior convictions (November 14, 1928, and August 20, 1942), found mitigating circumstances of plea of guilty (paragraph 7) and extreme poverty and necessity (paragraph 10, article 13 of the Revised Penal Code), treated recidivism as aggravating, and sentenced appellant to one month and one day of arresto mayor as principal penalty and two years, four months, and one day of prision correccional as additional penalty for habitual delinquency.
Issues:
- Was it proper to consider recidivism as an aggravating circumstance in imposing the additional penalty for habitual delinquency?
- Did the appellant qualify as a habitual delinquent under article 62, No. 5, of the Revised Penal Code, given the interval between prior convictions?
- Did extreme poverty and necessity constitute a mitigating circumstance under article 13 of the Revised Penal Code?
Ruling:
The Court modified the sentence by affirming the principal penalty and eliminating the additional penalty for habitual delinquency, without costs. The Court held that recidivism should not have been treated to sustain the additional penalty because the statutory requisites for habitual delinquency were not met. The Court approved the trial court's finding that extreme poverty and necessity was a mitigating circumstance.
Ratio:
The Court applied article 62, No. 5, of the Revised Penal Code, which deems a person habitually delinquent only if, within ten years from release or last conviction, he is convicted a third time of the specified crimes; because appellant's first conviction (1928) was more than ten years before his second (1942), only one prior conviction could be counted and the requirements of the Habitual Delinquency Law were not satisfied. The Court further held that consideration of recidivism as an aggravating circumstance was improper where it is inherent in habitual delinquency. The Court accepted the trial court's characterization of extreme poverty and necessity as an analogous mitigating circumstance under article 13, No. 10, of the Revised Penal Code, a view the Solicitor General recommended and which the Court endorsed; a concurring opinion further reasoned that extreme poverty may amount to incomplete exemption under article 13, No. 1, read with article 12, Nos. 5 and 6.
Doctrine:
- Article 62, No. 5, of the Revised Penal Code requires that three convictions of specified offenses occur within ten years to establish habitual delinquency.
- (Get Pro to unlock 4 more doctrines)