G.R. No. 48740 - People vs. Tolentino

The People of the Philippines instituted criminal proceedings against Faustino Tolentino y de Dios and Luisa Corpuz y Quitong in the municipal court of Manila.
The case arose from the theft of seven shirts valued at ₱14, owned by Cosme Famorca, for which both defendants pleaded guilty.
Both defendants were identified as recidivists, with prior convictions that played a significant role in the imposition of penalties.

The information in the case detailed previous convictions of the appellant for crimes such as theft, qualified theft, and estafa.
Specific dates of commission, trial dates, and corresponding sentences were presented, including, among others:

Convictions on dates ranging from the 1920s to the 1930s with varying sentences (e.g., arresto mayor, prision correccional) and payment of civil indemnities.
A noted inconsistency regarding the release date of one of the prior convictions, which later became a central point of contention.

The trial court treated the present case as the fourth conviction for Faustino Tolentino y de Dios (by disregarding one previous conviction based on the alleged absence of a release date).

In the Court of First Instance, both defendants were sentenced not only for the theft but also, in the case of Faustino Tolentino y de Dios, an additional penalty for habitual delinquency was imposed.
The additional penalty prescribed under paragraph 5 of Article 62 of the Revised Penal Code was applied differently based on whether the case was considered his third, fourth, or fifth conviction.
The sole issue on appeal by the appellant focused on the correctness of the additional penalty, particularly regarding whether the prior conviction count was correctly determined and applied.

The pertinent allegation stated that the appellant was a habitual delinquent based on previous convictions for similar crimes (robbery, theft, estafa, etc.) committed within a ten-year period preceding the current offense (commission dated August 13, 1941).
The information alleged that due to his habitual offending, additional penalties were mandatory under the Habitual Delinquency Law, even if one of his previous convictions lacked full documentary compliance.

Whether the appellant’s fourth previous conviction (with an undisclosed release date) should be disregarded in counting his total number of convictions for habitual delinquency.
Whether, by disregarding that conviction, the appellant could be treated as having only three previous convictions instead of four.

Whether the additional penalty provided under Article 62, paragraph 5 of the Revised Penal Code should be applied under paragraph 5(a), 5(b), or 5(c) given the appellant’s history.
Whether recidivism, as defined under Articles 14(9) and 64, can be considered as an aggravating circumstance on top of habitual delinquency.

Whether counting a previous conviction both as an aggravating circumstance for recidivism in the principal penalty and as part of the total number of convictions for habitual delinquency violates the legal principle against double punishment (non bis in idem).