Case Digest (A.M. No. RTJ-98-1400)
Case Digest (A.M. No. RTJ-98-1400)
Facts:
The People of the Philippine Islands v. Bienvenido Venus, G.R. No. 45141, September 15, 1936, the Supreme Court En Banc, Laurel, J., writing for the Court.
On March 16, 1936 the prosecuting attorney of the City of Manila filed an information in the Court of First Instance of Manila charging Bienvenido Venus with robbery in an inhabited house allegedly committed on or about March 9, 1936 at 1328 M. Natividad Street. The information alleged that Venus broke the hasp secured by a padlock, entered the house of Zoila de Talaban and took various personal properties valued at P188.50, with intent to gain and without the owner’s consent.
The information further averred that the accused “is a habitual delinquent,” alleging two prior final convictions: once for attempted robbery in an inhabited house and once for theft, and stating the date of his last conviction as November 14, 1934. At trial the accused pleaded guilty. The Court of First Instance imposed an indeterminate sentence ranging from four months and one day of arresto mayor to three years, three months and twenty-one days of prision correctional, awarded indemnity of P97.60 to the complainant for unrecovered property (with subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency), ordered return of recovered articles, and taxed costs.
The trial court treated recidivism as an aggravating circumstance but refused to adjudge the accused a habitual delinquent under Article 62 of the Revised Penal Code, reasoning that the habitual-delinquency allegation was deficient for failing to specify when the attempted-robbery conviction occurred. The defendant appealed to the Supreme Court. The Solicitor-General urged that Venus be adjudged a habitual delinquent; counsel of oficio for appellant recommended affirmance. The Supreme Court resolved the sufficiency of the habitual-delinquency allegation and the proper penalty on appeal.
Issues:
- Is the allegation of habitual delinquency in the information sufficient to permit imposition of the additional penalty for habitual delinquency under Article 62 of the Revised Penal Code?
- If habitual delinquency cannot be established from the information, what is the proper penalty to be imposed for the crime of robbery in an inhabited house given the plea of guilty and the presence of recidivism?
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)