Case Summary (G.R. No. 166836)
Applicable Law and Initial Penalty
Basilio de Jesus was convicted and sentenced to one month and one day of arresto mayor, along with accessory penalties. He was also ordered to indemnify the victim, Francisco Liwanag, in the amount of P2.50 for the value of the stolen umbrella. Furthermore, due to his status as a habitual delinquent, an additional penalty of two years, four months, and one day of prision correctional was imposed on him per the provisions of the Revised Penal Code, specifically subsection 5, paragraph (a), of Article 62, which governs habitual delinquency.
Appeal and Recommendations
Disagreeing with the imposed penalties, Basilio de Jesus appealed the sentence. His defense counsel de oficio recommended affirming the lower court's decision, noting that the theft would typically warrant a penalty of arresto mayor within its minimum and medium periods. The findings reflected that Basilio’s penalty was set at the minimum of the minimum period, making it the least possible penalty for the offense committed.
Mitigating and Aggravating Circumstances
The court acknowledged two key factors influencing the original sentence: Basilio's voluntary confession before the prosecution presented its evidence, which is a mitigating circumstance under Article 13, subsection 7, of the Revised Penal Code, and the absence of aggravating circumstances cited in the information against him.
Justification for Additional Penalty
The additional penalty of two years, four months, and one day was justified based on Basilio's admission of guilt. It is well established that a guilty plea encompasses an admission of all material facts claimed in the prosecution’s information, including prior convictions, which is pertinent given that Basilio was recognized as a habitual delinquent.
Arguments Regarding Recidivism
The Solicitor-General suggested increasing the primary penalty to the minimum of the medium period for arresto mayor—two months and one day—due to Basilio's habitual delinquency, which inherently denotes recidivism. The court considered whether recidivism could be treated as both an aggravating circumstance and as part of the definition of habitual delinquency in determining the penalties.
Legal Considerations and Court Opinion
The court articulated that habitual delinquency incorporates recidivism but concluded that it should not be considered an aggravating circumstance when determining the additional penalty. This reasoning was based on the distinction that while recidivism aggravates responsibility generally, in habitual delinquency it qualifies the crime itself and therefore should not lead to duplicative pen
...continue readingCase Syllabus (G.R. No. 166836)
Case Overview
- Basilio de Jesus y Javier was convicted of theft involving an umbrella and a buri hat, valued at P2.65, committed on April 28, 1936.
- The Court of First Instance of Manila sentenced him to one month and one day of arresto mayor, accessory penalties, and a requirement to indemnify the victim, Francisco Liwanag, P2.50 for the unreturned umbrella.
- As a habitual delinquent, he received an additional penalty of two years, four months, and one day of prision correctional, in accordance with Article 62 of the Revised Penal Code.
Appeal and Legal Arguments
- De Jesus appealed the sentence, seeking a review and modification of his penalties.
- His counsel de oficio recommended affirmance of the sentence, asserting it was in accordance with the law.
- The theft charge, being of a low value, was punishable by arresto mayor in its minimum and medium periods, confirming the minimum penalty was appropriately applied.
Mitigating and Aggravating Circumstances
- The lower court’s leniency was attributed to De Jesus’s voluntary confession, qualifying as a mitigating circumstance under Article 13 of the Revised Penal Code.
- No aggravating circumstances were all