Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1932 > December 1932 Decisions > G.R. No. 37054 December 23, 1932 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. ISLANDS v. EMILIO m. SANCHEZ

057 Phil 770:




PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

EN BANC

[G.R. No. 37054. December 23, 1932.]

THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. EMILIO SANCHEZ Y MERCADO, Defendant-Appellant.

Isidro Santiago for Appellant.

Attorney-General Jaranilla for Appellee.

SYLLABUS


1. CRIMINAL LAW; MITIGATING AND AGGRAVATING CIRCUMSTANCES IN CASES IN HABITUAL DELINQUENCY; ADDITIONAL PENALTY. — Mitigating and aggravating circumstances do not determine the degree of the additional penalty to be imposed for habitual delinquency. Additional penalties for habitual delinquency under article 62, paragraph 5 of the Revised Penal Code are to be imposed according to the sound discretion of the court within the limits fixed by said article. The additional penalty is determined by the rule of reasonableness, upon a just appreciation of all the facts and circumstances of the case.


D E C I S I O N


BUTTE, J.:


The appellant was convicted in the Court of First Instance of Manila for the crime of robbery and sentenced to three years, eight months and one day of prision correccional and to indemnify J.W. Flannery in the sum of P25 and A. J. Wise in the sum of 20 centavos, and to the costs. He was also sentenced to an additional penalty of three years for habitual delinquency. No member of this court doubts that the appellant was properly found guilty of the offense charged. The only question to be considered relates to the penalty to be assessed.

The facts of this case bring the offense under the provisions of article 293 and article 294, paragraph 5, of the Revised Penal Code, the prescribed penalty being prision correccional to prision mayor in its medium degree, that is to say, from three years, eight months and one day to six years and ten months. But the Attorney-General calls attention to the aggravating circumstances of nocturnity and recidivism and recommends that the penalty which the law prescribes in such a case must be in its maximum degree, that is, from six years, ten months and one day to ten years. We concur in this view and assess the original penalty at six years, ten months and one day.

Coming now to the question of the additional penalty for habitual delinquency applicable in this case, article 62, paragraph 5 (a), of the Revised Penal Code provides:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"En caso de ser convicto por tercera vez, el culpable sera castigado con la pena señalada por la ley al delito de que fuese ultimamente convicto y con la pena adicional de prision correccional en sus grados medio y maximo . . ." that is to say, from two years, four months and one day to six years. The additional penalty imposed by the court below falls within said limits and is affirmed.

The Attorney-General, however, argues that the additional penalty for habitual delinquency should be in the maximum degree, that is, from four years, nine months and eleven days to six years, his argument being that the principal penalty having been imposed in the maximum degree, the additional penalty must be in the same degree. We do not concur in this view of the law.

In the case of People v. Tanyaquin (alias Arcadio Rico), No. 37124, promulgated October 28, 1932, 1 we had occasion to consider article 62, paragraph 5, of the Revised Penal Code, and we indicated there our view that mitigating and aggravating circumstances, as defined in articles 13 and 14 of the Revised Penal Code, must be taken into consideration in determining the degree of the principal penalty and be given the definite effects prescribed in the Revised Penal Code. But said mitigating and aggravating circumstances do not determine the degree of the additional penalty to be imposed for habitual delinquency. Additional penalties for habitual delinquency under article 62, paragraph 5, are to be imposed according to the sound discretion of the court within the limits fixed by said article.

Mitigating and aggravating circumstances being part of the circumstances of the whole case, must certainly be taken into consideration, but not in the sense that they determine by force of law what the degree of the additional penalty shall be. The additional penalty is determined by the rule of reasonableness, upon a just appreciation of all the facts and circumstances of the case. To the criticism that such a discretion is uncontrolled and arbitrary, the answer is that it is not and need not be any more so than in case of other powers, executive, legislative, and judicial, that must be left to the discretion of competent men who have taken a solemn oath to perform their duty faithfully.

Habitual delinquency is not a crime in itself, capable of exact definition. It is only a factor in determining a total penalty. It is impossible to lay down any mechanical criteria for fixing the additional penalty for habitual delinquency within the limits fixed by article 62, paragraph 5. All the facts and circumstances brought to light at the trial should be taken into account; and if after the guilt of the accused is established, the court wishes to have information as to the antecedents of the accused or other personal facts not appearing in the record so that it may the better determine what is a just and proper additional penalty, we see no reason why the court may not require such additional evidence to enable it to act more intelligently in determining the additional penalty.

The judgment of the court below is affirmed with costs de oficio. So ordered.

Street, Villa-Real, Abad Santos, Hull, Vickers and Imperial, JJ., concur.

Separate Opinions


AVANCEÑA, C.J., with whom concurs VILLAMOR, J., dissenting:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

I dissent for the reasons stated in my dissenting opinion in case No. 37124, 1 entitled "The People of the Philippine Islands v. Arcadio Tanyaquin."

Endnotes:



1. Page 426, ante.

1. Page 430, ante.




Back to Home | Back to Main




















chanrobles.com





ChanRobles On-Line Bar Review

ChanRobles Internet Bar Review : www.chanroblesbar.com

ChanRobles MCLE On-line

ChanRobles Lawnet Inc. - ChanRobles MCLE On-line : www.chanroblesmcleonline.com






December-1932 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. 35961 December 2, 1932 - ROMANA MIRANDA v. TARLAC RICE MILL CO., INC.

    057 Phil 619

  • G.R. No. 37207 December 6, 1932 - JULIAN T. AGUÑA v. ANTONIO LARENA

    057 Phil 630

  • G.R. No. 36713 December 7, 1932 - ORLANES & BANAAG TRANS. CO., INC., ET AL. v. PUBLIC SERVICE COM., ET AL.

    057 Phil 634

  • G.R. No. 34719 December 8, 1932 - ALBERTO BARRETTO, ET AL. v. LA PREVISORA FILIPINA

    057 Phil 649

  • G.R. No. 35955 December 9, 1932 - JOSE D. VILLEGAS, ET AL. v. PEREGRINA TAN, ET AL.

    057 Phil 656

  • IN RE: HERACLIO ABISTADO : December 10, 1932 - 057 Phil 668

  • G.R. No. 36199 December 10, 1932 - MANUEL CASTRO, ET AL. v. JOSE CASTRO

    057 Phil 675

  • G.R. No. 37523 December 10, 1932 - PATRICIO FERNANDEZ v. HIGINIO MENDOZA

    057 Phil 687

  • G.R. No. 35125 December 12, 1932 - BPI v. B.A. GREEN, ET AL.

    057 Phil 712

  • G.R. No. 37524 December 12, 1932 - MIGUEL ARRIETA v. MARIANO RODRIGUEZ

    057 Phil 717

  • G.R. No. 35797 December 13, 1932 - TORIBIO LAXAMANA v. LAUREANA CARLOS, ET AL.

    057 Phil 722

  • G.R. No. 36739 December 17, 1932 - GENOVEVA FERNANDEZ v. PEDRO ANINIAS

    057 Phil 737

  • G.R. No. 35993 December 19, 1932 - ADELAIDA TOLENTINO v. NATALIA FRANCISCO, ET AL.

    057 Phil 742

  • G.R. No. 35741 December 20, 1932 - VICTORIA TALLER VIUDA DE NAVA v. YNCHAUSTI STEAMSHIP CO.

    057 Phil 751

  • G.R. No. 36039 December 21, 1932 - FELIPE YANGO v. SIMPLICIO MILLAN, ET AL.

    057 Phil 761

  • G.R. No. 38637 December 21, 1932 - FRED FRANKEL v. CLARA WEBBER, ET AL.

    057 Phil 767

  • G.R. No. 37054 December 23, 1932 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. ISLANDS v. EMILIO m. SANCHEZ

    057 Phil 770

  • G.R. No. 37196 December 23, 1932 - ANG GIOK CHIP v. INSULAR COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS

    057 Phil 773

  • G.R. No. 35489 December 29, 1932 - MANUEL SOTELO v. BEHN, MEYER & CO., ET AL.

    057 Phil 775