Case Digest (G.R. No. 34039)
Facts:
The People of the Philippine Islands v. Leoncio Villegas y Tuliao, G.R. No. 34039, January 16, 1931, the Supreme Court En Banc, Romualdez, J., writing for the Court.The People of the Philippine Islands prosecuted Leoncio Villegas y Tuliao (alias Lucio Villegas; alias Francisco Bravo) for attempted robbery in an inhabited house. The information charged that on or about July 9, 1930, in Manila, the accused entered the first floor dwelling of Miss S. H. Olson at No. 558 San Luis Street by cutting and forcibly breaking the wire screen of a window—an opening not intended for entrance—thereby commencing robbery by overt acts; it alleged intent to take personal property valued at P1,000 and that failure to accomplish the theft was due to timely detection and intervention by third persons. The information also alleged prior convictions: eight convictions for theft and two for estafa, the last on February 3, 1925, and asserted that the defendant was an habitual delinquent under Act No. 3586.
In the trial court the defendant first pleaded not guilty at arraignment but, the next day and accompanied by counsel, withdrew the plea and pleaded guilty. The trial court found him guilty of attempted robbery in an inhabited house, adjudged him a recidivist and habitual criminal as charged, and sentenced him to two months' arresto mayor under paragraph 2, subsection 5, Article 508 of the Penal Code, plus twenty-one years' imprisonment under Act No. 3586, with costs.
The defendant appealed the judgment. His assignments of error complained (1) that the offense to which he pleaded guilty was, at most, trespass to dwelling and not attempted robbery in an inhabited house, and (2) that the imposition of the additional twenty-one-year penalty under Act No. 3586 was impro...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Was the conviction for attempted robbery in an inhabited house proper, or did the facts support at most trespass to dwelling?
- Could the trial court lawfully impose the additional habitual-criminal penalty under Act No. 3586 based on prior convictions that were rendered before ...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)