Title
People vs. Mari y Duran
Case
G.R. No. L-2822
Decision Date
Oct 13, 1949
Teofilo Mari appealed his sentence for qualified theft of a jeep, arguing improper penalty application under Republic Act No. 120. The Supreme Court adjusted his sentence under the Indeterminate Sentence Law, affirming the conviction.

Case Digest (G.R. No. 137355-58)
Expanded Legal Reasoning Model

Facts:

  • Case Background
    • The case involves the prosecution of Teofilo Mari y Duran and Joven Guevarra y Castro for qualified theft.
    • The criminal act allegedly occurred on or about January 2, 1943, where both accused were charged with conspiring to steal the Ford civilian jeep of Sy Chit, valued at ₱1,500.
  • Trial Proceedings
    • A joint trial was conducted in January 1949 before the court of first instance of Manila.
    • During the trial, two witnesses for the prosecution had already testified when Teofilo Mari changed his position.
      • Teofilo Mari withdrew his plea of not guilty and subsequently pleaded guilty.
      • The trial continued for Joven Guevarra, who maintained his defense until the conclusion.
  • Findings and Sentencing
    • After the trial, the court rendered a decision finding Joven Guevarra guilty of having stolen the jeep in connivance with Teofilo Mari.
    • Considering Teofilo Mari’s plea of guilty, the court imposed a sentence ranging from 4 years, 2 months, and 1 day of prision correccional up to 8 years and 1 day of prision mayor.
    • The issue of the proper imposition of sentence under the applicable law was raised on appeal.
  • Statutory and Legal Considerations
    • The case is influenced by Republic Act No. 120, effective June 14, 1947, which amended Article 310 of the Revised Penal Code.
      • Under the amendment, the theft involving a motor vehicle is classified as qualified theft.
      • The penalty for qualified theft is set two degrees higher than the ordinary theft penalty.
    • For an ordinary theft of property worth ₱1,500, the prescribed penalty is prision correccional in its minimum and medium periods.
      • The two-degree escalation renders the applicable penalty as prision mayor in its medium and maximum periods.
      • The medium period was applied here since no mitigating or aggravating circumstances were found.
  • Evidentiary and Procedural Considerations
    • The defendant’s plea of guilt was submitted after two prosecution witnesses had testified.
    • The jurisprudence emphasizes that a voluntary confession must be made before the presentation of any prosecution evidence to be considered a mitigating circumstance.

Issues:

  • Legal Question on Sentencing
    • Whether the sentence imposed on Teofilo Mari y Duran, requiring the penalty to be two degrees higher because the stolen property was a motor vehicle, is in accord with the amended legal provisions.
    • Whether the delayed voluntary confession, made after the presentation of evidence, should affect the determination of mitigating circumstances in sentencing.
  • Application of Statutory Penalties
    • How the amendment to Article 310 of the Revised Penal Code, through Republic Act No. 120, applies to a case where the theft involves a motor vehicle.
    • Whether the imposition of prision mayor in its medium period, instead of a lower penalty, properly reflects the statutory requirements and judicial precedents.

Ruling:

  • (Subscriber-Only)

Ratio:

  • (Subscriber-Only)

Doctrine:

  • (Subscriber-Only)

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur is a legal research platform serving the Philippines with case digests and jurisprudence resources.