Case Digest (G.R. No. 48740)
Facts:
In the municipal court of Manila and on appeal to the Court of First Instance, Faustino Tolentino y de Dios and Luisa Corpuz y Quitong pleaded guilty to theft of seven shirts valued at P14 belonging to Cosme Famorca. Both were sentenced for theft and, being recidivists, received two months and one day of arresto mayor plus the corresponding civil indemnity; Faustino was further given an additional penalty for habitual delinquency.
Faustino alone appealed, assailing only the correctness of the additional penalty, which the trial court imposed under Art. 62(5)(b) of the Revised Penal Code for what it treated as his fourth conviction. The information alleged multiple prior convictions for theft and estafa, and the issue turned on whether the unshown date of release from the alleged fourth conviction could be disregarded, and whether recidivism should affect the principal penalty in fixing the additional penalty for habitual delinquency.
Issues:
- Whether the accused’s unshown date of release in connection with the alleged fourth previous conviction could be disregarded in determining the number of prior convictions for habitual delinquency.
- Whether, in fixing the additional penalty for habitual delinquency, recidivism could be treated as an aggravating circumstance affecting the principal penalty.
- Whether the accused was properly sentenced as a fourth or fifth (additional) habitual delinquent, and the proper additional penalty to be imposed.
Ruling:
The Court held that the trial court and the Solicitor General erred in treating the case as the accused’s fourth conviction by disregarding the alleged fourth prior conviction due to the absence of the date of release. The Court ruled that the accused’s prior convictions established that he was actually a fifth conviction, hence the applicable effect under Art. 62(5)(c) applied.
The Court modified the sentence by imposing the correct additional penalty for a fifth (additional) conviction, and it held that this additional penalty must be imposed in its minimum degree because of the accused’s plea of guilty.
Ratio:
The Court reaffirmed that a habitual delinquent is necessarily a recidivist, and that in fixing the principal penalty the aggravating circumstance of recidivism must be considered, consistent with People v. Melondrez, People v. Espina, and People v. De Jesus. It clarified that, while recidivism must inform the principal penalty, it cannot be separately used as an aggravating circumstance for purposes of fixing the additional penalty, because recidivism is inherent in habitual delinquency.
On the counting of convictions, the Court rejected the theory that the accused’s alleged fourth prior conviction should be disregarded solely because the date of release was not shown. The Court inferred that the accused was sentenced on September 30, 1935 for the fourth time and that he must have been released less than ten years before the commission date of the present offense (August 13, 1941), meaning the prior conviction could not be excluded from the habitual delinquency calculation. Thus, with the alleged fourth conviction properly counted, the present conviction became the accused’s fifth, warranting the additional penalty under Art. 62(5)(c) in its minimum degree due to the plea of guilty.
Doctrine:
- Under Art. 62(5) of the Revised Penal Code, a person is deemed a habitual delinquent if within ten years from the date of release or last conviction of robo, hurto, estafa, or falsificacion, the offender is found guilty of any of said crimes a third time or oftener.
- (Get Pro to unlock 4 more doctrines)