Republic of the Philippines
SUPREME COURT
Manila
EN BANC
G.R. No. L-30869 July 16, 1929
THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS, plaintiff-appellee,
vs.
BENITO HIPOLITO, DAVID PABLO, AND VICTORINO REYES (alias VICTORINO DE LOS REYES), appellant.
Gaudencio Garcia for appellant.
Attorney-General Jaranilla for appellee.
JOHNSON, J.:
On the 11th day of October, 1928, one of the prosecuting attorneys of the city of Manila filed an information against the above-named defendants, charging them with the crime of robbery. The information alleged:
That on or about the 10th day of September, 1928, in the City of Manila, Philippine Islands, the said accused, confederating together and helping together by climbing the wall of inhabited house No. 444 Tejeron St. and thereby gaining entry to the said house through a hole made by the accused in the wall, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously, with intent of gain and without the consent of the owner thereof, take and carry away from the said house the following personal property belonging to Ong Chip, to wit:
Fifty pesos (P50) in different denominations, to the damage and prejudice of the said owner in the said sum and equivalent to and of the value of 250 pesetas;
That the accused Victorino Reyes is an habitual criminal within the preview of Act No. 3397 of the Philippine Legislature, he having previously been convicted by final judgments of the competent courts twice of theft and once of the crime estafa, the last conviction being that of qualified theft on March 1, 1927.
Benito Hipolito and David Pablo were tried first. Victorino Reyes was not included in the trial because his arrest was not effected until a later date. His two accused were found guilty of the crime charged, without any mitigating or aggravating circumstances, and sentenced by Judge C.A. Imperial, each to suffer 2 years, 11 months and 11 days of presidio correccional, to indemnify jointly and severally the offended person, Ong Chip, in the sum of P50, with subsidiary improvement in case of insolvency, and to pay a proportional part of the costs. From that sentence Benito Hipolito and David Pablo did not appeal.
Upon arraignment Victorino Reyes pleaded not guilty. At the opening of the trial however, he withdrew his former plea and entered a plea of guilty. In view thereof, the Honorable C. A. Imperial, judge, sentenced him to suffer 2 years and 5 months of prision correccional, with the accessory penalties of the law, to indemnity of the offended person in the sum of P50 or any part thereof remaining unpaid, with subsidiary improvement in the case of insolvency, and to pay a proportional part of the cost. The dispositive part of the decision reads as follows:
Por tanto, el Juzgado halla al acusado Victorino Reyes alias Victorino de los Reyes culpable del delito de robo tal y conforme esta alegado en la quarella y la condena a dos anos y cinco meses de prision correccional , a indemnizar al ofendido en la cantidad de concuenta pesos (P50), o la parte de ella que no lo hubiese sido por los otros co-acusados, con prision subsadiaria correspondiente en caso de insolvencia, en (con) las demas accesorias aplicables de la ley y al pago de la parte proporcional de las costas del jucio. Asi se ordena. From that sentence Victorino Reyes appealed.
The defendant having pleaded guilty, the only question for determination is whether the penalty imposed by the lower court is in accordance with the law. The attorney for the appellant recommend confirmation of the penalty.
The Attorney-General recommends that the penalty of imprisonment be raised to a maximum degree in view of the aggravating circumstance of recidivism resulting from the appellant's former convictions; and that an additional penalty of not less than 10 nor more than 15 years of imprisonment be also imposed because of his being an habitual criminal, under the provisions of Act No. 3397, section 1 paragraph (b).
We agree with the recommendation of the Attorney-General as to the imposition of additional penalty under the provisions of act No. 3397. The appellant having pleaded guilty of the acts recited in the information, including his being an habitual criminal, the penalty provided by Act No. 3397 should also be imposed upon him. We also agree with the Attorney-General that the appellant's former convictions should be considered as aggravating circumstance, and that the penalty of imprisonment should be imposed in a maximum degree. (People vs. Aguinaldo, 47 Phil., 728).
The penalty imposed by the lower court (2 years and 5 months of prision correccional), is in the minimum degree or 3 years, 6 months, and 21 days of presidio correccional, in view of the aggravating circumstance of recidivism.
In view of all the foregoing, the sentence appealed from is hereby modified, and the appellant is hereby sentenced to suffer 3 years, 6 months and 21 days of presidio correccional, with the accessory penalties of the law, to indemnify the offended person in the sum of P50 or any part of thereof remaining unpaid, with subsidiary improvement in the case of insolvency, and to pay a proportional part of the costs. The appellant is hereby further sentenced to suffer an additional penalty of 10 years of imprisonment in accordance with the provisions of section 1, paragraph (b) of Act No. 3397. With costs. It is so ordered.
Avancena, C.J., Street, Villamor, Johns, Romualdez and Villa-Real, JJ., concur.
The Lawphil Project - Arellano Law Foundation
