G.R. No. 197530 - Aboitiz Equity Ventures, Inc. vs. Chiongbian

The case involves the People of the Philippine Islands as plaintiff/appellee and Gervasio Santiago as defendant/appellant.
The judgment under appeal was rendered by the Court of First Instance of Manila, in two criminal cases (Nos. 38871 and 38872) involving the crime of estafa and a municipal ordinance violation.
The trial court found Santiago guilty beyond reasonable doubt and imposed separate penalties in each case.

On the morning of August 27, 1929, Santiago engaged Francisco Fulgencio’s carretela at an agreed fare of P1.50 for a round trip from the corner of Isaac Peral and Nebraska Streets in Ermita to the Quinta Market.
Santiago’s itinerary included stops at the Meralco office and, subsequently, at San Miguel Brewery on Aviles Street.
While at the brewery, Santiago inquired whether the driver had additional money; upon learning that Fulgencio only had 70 centavos, Santiago borrowed this amount.
After entering the building and emerging later, Santiago tried to evade Fulgencio, prompting the driver to pursue him in the carretela.
Santiago was later spotted hiding near San Rafael Street and, upon being confronted, returned the borrowed sum.
The incident concluded when Fulgencio handed Santiago over to policeman Cirilo Abala, who discovered that Santiago lacked the funds to pay the agreed fare and successfully apprehended him after a brief chase.

It was proved at trial that Santiago had a history of estafa convictions, with evidence of multiple prior offenses.
In a previous case (No. 38870), Santiago had been tried, convicted, and sentenced for estafa committed on March 13, 1929, which contributed to his habitual criminal status.
The criminal record, highlighting convictions and sentencing for repeated estafa offenses, factored into the imposition of additional penalties under relevant statutory provisions.

In criminal case No. 38871, Santiago was sentenced to two years, four months, and one day of presidio correctional for estafa, along with accessories required by law, to indemnify the victim, and to pay court costs.
Being adjudged an habitual criminal, an additional penalty of nine years’ imprisonment was imposed in case No. 38871.
In a separate criminal case (No. 38872) regarding the violation of a municipal ordinance (Section 1213 of the Revised Ordinances of Manila), he was ordered to pay a fine of P5 (with subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency), in addition to payment of court costs.
The trial court also referenced Santiago’s prior additional penalty of twenty-one years imposed in case No. 38870 and discussed the necessity and limits of additional penalties under Act No. 3397, noting that the total additional penalty should not exceed thirty years.

Whether the trial court erred in giving insufficient weight to Santiago’s testimony asserting that upon dismissing the carretela he paid the driver 40 centavos as hire (accepted via the intervention of a policeman).
Whether the trial court erred by failing to extend Santiago the benefit of reasonable doubt in charging him with estafa and with violating the municipal ordinance.

Whether it is proper to impose the additional penalty for habitual delinquency for a new crime when the same offender, having already been convicted for an earlier offense, commits a subsequent crime before the conviction of the prior offense is finalized.
Whether the cumulative imposition of additional penalties, considering Santiago’s prior conviction and penalty in case No. 38870, exceeds the limitations and intent of Act No. 3397 in sentencing habitual criminals.