December 1929 - Philippine Supreme Court Decisions/Resolutions
Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence
Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1929 > December 1929 Decisions >
G.R. No. 31883 December 3, 1929 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. DEMETRIO CASTRO
054 Phil 100:
054 Phil 100:
EN BANC
[G.R. No. 31883. December 3, 1929.]
THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. DEMETRIO CASTRO, Defendant-Appellant.
Rosario Ocampo Zamora, for Appellant.
Attorney-General Jaranilla, for Appellee.
SYLLABUS
1. CRIMINAL LAW; MITIGATING CIRCUMSTANCES. — The plea of guilty does not mitigate criminal liability under our present law. Even supposing for a moment that the provisions of the Penal Code are applicable to Act No. 3397 (they are not, according to the Code itself, and to the ruling of this court: article 7, Penal Code; U. S. v. Calaguas, 14 Phil., 739; U. S. v. Lao Lock Hing, 14 Phil., 86), the truth is that the plea of guilty is not one of the circumstances impliedly recognized in article 9, No. 8, of the Penal Code. (Decision of the Supreme Court of Spain of February 23, 1872; I - Hidalgo, Penal Code, 176; U. S. v. Ablaza, 1 Phil., 740.)
2. ID.; ID. — Neither may courts consider the fact that the accused has a family as a mitigating circumstances, just as neither old age nor being deaf and dumb is considered as such. (Decisions of the Supreme Court of Spain of December 23, 1872 and March 20, 1903; I - Hidalgo, Penal Code, 175, 178-179.)
3. ID.; SERVICE OF SENTENCE BY DEFENDANT’S COACCUSED. — The fact that the defendants coaccused have already served their sentences is no reason for not applying the law to the defendant according to the results of the prosecution against him.
2. ID.; ID. — Neither may courts consider the fact that the accused has a family as a mitigating circumstances, just as neither old age nor being deaf and dumb is considered as such. (Decisions of the Supreme Court of Spain of December 23, 1872 and March 20, 1903; I - Hidalgo, Penal Code, 175, 178-179.)
3. ID.; SERVICE OF SENTENCE BY DEFENDANT’S COACCUSED. — The fact that the defendants coaccused have already served their sentences is no reason for not applying the law to the defendant according to the results of the prosecution against him.
D E C I S I O N
ROMUALDEZ, J.:
The self-confessed accused, Demetrio Castro, having been and convicted of the crime of theft and habitual delinquency in the lower court, was sentenced to six months and one day of presidio correccional, to pay an indemnity of P6.18, to suffer subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency, to pay the costs and to an additional imprisonment of sixteen years.
He appeals to this court from said judgment. His attorney de oficio, in his brief presented therein, and the accused himself, in a letter addressed to this court, without discussing the merits of the case, limit themselves to imploring this court not to impose upon him the additional penalty under Act No. 3397, because he pleaded guilty, he has a family, and this coaccused have already served their sentences.
The plea of guilty is not, under our existing penal laws, a cause for mitigating the criminal liability. Even granting for a moment that the provisions of the Penal Code are applicable to Act No. 3397 (they are not according to the Code itself and to the ruling of this court: article 7, Penal Code; U. S. v. Calaguas, 14 Phil., 739; U. S. v. Lao Lock Hing, 14 Phil., 86), the truth is that the plea of guilty is not one of the circumstances impliedly recognized in article 9, No. 8, of the Penal Code. (Decision of the Supreme Court of Spain of February 23, 1872; I-Hidalgo, Penal Code, 175; U. S. v. Ablaza, 1 Phil., 740.)
Neither may the courts consider the fact that the accused has a family as a mitigating circumstances, just as neither old age nor being deaf and dumb is considered as such. (Decisions of the Supreme Court of Spain of December 23, 1872, and March 20, 1903; I-Hidalgo, Penal Code, 175, 178-179.)
The fact that the coaccused of the appellant have already served their sentences is no reason for not applying to him the law in accordance with the result of the prosecution against him.
The Attorney-General recommends that, there being no circumstances modifying the act, the penalty should be imposed in its medium degree and the indemnity should be P6.28, pursuant to the information to which the accused pleaded guilty. We find these considerations well-founded.
Wherefore, the judgment appealed from is modified, and the appellant is hereby sentenced to two years, four months and one day of presidio correccional, with the accessaries provided in article 58 of the Penal Code; to indemnify the offended party in the sum of P6.28, with subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvecy; to pay the costs, and to suffer and additional imprisonment of sixteen years. So ordered.
Avanceña, C.J., Johnson, Ostrand, Johns and Villa-Real, JJ., concur.
He appeals to this court from said judgment. His attorney de oficio, in his brief presented therein, and the accused himself, in a letter addressed to this court, without discussing the merits of the case, limit themselves to imploring this court not to impose upon him the additional penalty under Act No. 3397, because he pleaded guilty, he has a family, and this coaccused have already served their sentences.
The plea of guilty is not, under our existing penal laws, a cause for mitigating the criminal liability. Even granting for a moment that the provisions of the Penal Code are applicable to Act No. 3397 (they are not according to the Code itself and to the ruling of this court: article 7, Penal Code; U. S. v. Calaguas, 14 Phil., 739; U. S. v. Lao Lock Hing, 14 Phil., 86), the truth is that the plea of guilty is not one of the circumstances impliedly recognized in article 9, No. 8, of the Penal Code. (Decision of the Supreme Court of Spain of February 23, 1872; I-Hidalgo, Penal Code, 175; U. S. v. Ablaza, 1 Phil., 740.)
Neither may the courts consider the fact that the accused has a family as a mitigating circumstances, just as neither old age nor being deaf and dumb is considered as such. (Decisions of the Supreme Court of Spain of December 23, 1872, and March 20, 1903; I-Hidalgo, Penal Code, 175, 178-179.)
The fact that the coaccused of the appellant have already served their sentences is no reason for not applying to him the law in accordance with the result of the prosecution against him.
The Attorney-General recommends that, there being no circumstances modifying the act, the penalty should be imposed in its medium degree and the indemnity should be P6.28, pursuant to the information to which the accused pleaded guilty. We find these considerations well-founded.
Wherefore, the judgment appealed from is modified, and the appellant is hereby sentenced to two years, four months and one day of presidio correccional, with the accessaries provided in article 58 of the Penal Code; to indemnify the offended party in the sum of P6.28, with subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvecy; to pay the costs, and to suffer and additional imprisonment of sixteen years. So ordered.
Avanceña, C.J., Johnson, Ostrand, Johns and Villa-Real, JJ., concur.
