Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1931 > September 1931 Decisions > G.R. No. 35346 September 10, 1931 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. PEDRO S. SORIANO

056 Phil 95:




PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

EN BANC

[G.R. No. 35346. September 10, 1931.]

THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. PEDRO SORIANO Y SISON, Defendant-Appellant.

Venancio B. Lara, for Appellant.

Attorney-General Jaranilla, for Appellee.

SYLLABUS


1. CRIMINAL LAW; HABITUAL DELINQUENT ACT; CONSTITUTIONALITY AND VALIDITY OF. — The Habitual Delinquent Act, No. 3586 of the Philippine Legislature, amending Act No. 3397, is of modern origin and tends towards the reform of culprits who have evinced obstinacy in crime. The scheme is to punish the offense last perpetrated taking the preceding convictions into account, but only to impose a more severe penalty. The culprit is not punished for the felonies committed before, which he has already expiated, but for the crime or violation of law again committed, although in imposing the penalty, the habitual quality and felonious tendency of his conduct is taken into consideration. The additional penalties are applied equally to all who are in the same condition. Therefore, the law is not unconstitutional or null and void because ex post facto, or discriminatory, or because it places the defendant twice in jeopardy for the same offense. (People v. Sierra, G. R. No. 28516 April 21, 1928, not reported; People v. Madrano, 53 Phil., 860: People v. Montera, 55 Phil., 933.)


D E C I S I O N


IMPERIAL, J.:


Pedro Soriano y Sison was charged in the Court of First Instance of Manila with the crime of frustrated theft committed as follows, to wit:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"That on or about the 6th day of March, 1931, in the City of Manila, Philippine Islands, the said accused willfully, unlawfully, and feloniously, with intent of gain and without the consent of the owner thereof, took and was in the act of carrying away the fighting rooster valued at P15 belonging to Antonio Borja, thus performing all the acts of execution which should produce the crime of theft as a consequence, but which, nevertheless, did not produce it by reason of causes independent of the will of the accused, that is, the timely arrival of the said Antonio Borja, who having surprised the said accused in the criminal act caused the accused to let loose the said rooster and to leave the same in the premises of the said owner.

"That the said accused is a habitual criminal within the purview of Act No. 3586, he having previously been convicted by final judgments of competent courts seven (7) times of the said crime of theft and once (1) of attempted robbery within a period of ten (10) years from the date of his last conviction on June 9, 1924."cralaw virtua1aw library

After the hearing, during which the defendant had the benefit of counsel, he was found guilty of the crime of attempted theft, and was sentenced to pay a fine of 325 pesetas or P65, with subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency, and to pay the costs; he was further sentenced to the additional penalty of twenty-one years imprisonment as an habitual criminal in accordance with subsection (d) of Act No. 3586. The defendant appealed.

The record shows that in the early morning of March 6, 1931, the aforementioned appellant went to the veranda of the complainant, Antonio Borja, and tried to carry away his game cock; he was untying the cock with the evident intent of taking it away, when Borja approached and foiled his attempt to steal it. When the appellant became aware of Borja’s presence, he let go of the cock and ran away, with Borja and one Aquino in pursuit; he was finally caught and arrested by policeman Arcadio Rivero who had also appeared upon the scene and assisted in the capture of the Appellant.

The appellant has been seven times convicted of the crime of theft and once of attempted robbery, his last two convictions having taken place on June 9, 1924, within ten years immediately preceding his conviction in the instant case.

The defense raises two questions, one of fact and the other of law. The first is that the evidence is not sufficient to sustain a conviction of the crime of which he has been found guilty. The facts, as established by the evidence, fully support the finding of the defendant’s guilt. The second question is that the Law on Habitual Delinquency is unconstitutional as being ex post facto, discriminatory, and imposes a double penalty for the same offense. Not one of these contentions is supported by the law. We have already held in People v. Sierra (G. R. No. 28516, April 21, 1928) 1; People v. Ortezuela (51 Phil., 857); People v. Madrano (53 Phil., 860); and People v. Montera (55 Phil., 933), that the law in question is valid and constitutional and suffers from none of the defects attributed to it by the defense; and in the case of People v. Abuyen (52 Phil., 722), it was further held that the said law is applicable to both consummated and frustrated or attempted crimes.

The judgment appealed from being in accordance with the law, it is hereby affirmed in its entirety, with costs against the appellant. So ordered.

Avanceña, C.J., Johnson, Street, Malcolm, Villamor, Ostrand, Romualdez and Villa-Real, JJ., concur.

Endnotes:



1. Not reported.




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






September-1931 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. 35937 September 2, 1931 - DIEGO CUEVAS v. JUAN G. LESACA

    056 Phil25cralaw:red

  • G.R. No. 34331 September 3, 1931 - ILOILO COMMERCIAL AND ICE COMPANY v. PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION

    056 Phil 28

  • G.R. No. 33224 September 4, 1931 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. BERNABE VILLAPANDO

    056 Phil 31

  • G.R. No. 33795 September 4, 1931 - ALEIDA SAAVEDRA v. CEFERINO YBAÑEZ ESTRADA

    056 Phil 33

  • G.R. No. 34187 September 7, 1931 - JOAQUIN A. ELEAZAR v. GONZALO ABAYA, ET AL.

    056 Phil 39

  • G.R. No. 34917 September 7, 1931 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. LUA CHU, ET AL.

    056 Phil 44

  • G.R. No. 35066 September 7, 1931 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. PURIFICACION ALMONTE

    056 Phil 54

  • G.R. No. 32894 September 8, 1931 - LEOCADIA ANGELO v. CIPRIANO PACHECO

    056 Phil 70

  • G.R. No. 33598 September 8, 1931 - GOVERNMENT OF THE PHIL. v. FAUSTINO ABAD, ET AL.

    056 Phil 75

  • G.R. No. 34638 September 9, 1931 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ESTEBAN CABAJAR

    056 Phil 83

  • G.R. No. 35235 September 10, 1931 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. EUGENIO MOMO

    056 Phil 86

  • G.R. No. 35346 September 10, 1931 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. PEDRO S. SORIANO

    056 Phil 95

  • G.R. No. 34283 September 11, 1931 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. TELESFORO ALVIAR

    056 Phil 98

  • G.R. No. 34004 September 12, 1931 - APOLONIA CALMA v. EULALIO CALMA

    056 Phil 102

  • G.R. No. 34497 September 12, 1931 - LA YEBANA COMPANY v. ALHAMBRA CIGAR & CIGARETTE MANUFACTURING CO., ET AL.

    056 Phil 106

  • G.R. No. 33413 September 16, 1931 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. VICTORINO CARIÑO

    056 Phil 109

  • G.R. No. 34780 September 16, 1931 - RURAL TRANSIT COMPANY v. PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION

    056 Phil 115

  • G.R. No. 35223 September 17, 1931 - BACHRACH MOTOR CO. v. TALISAY- SILAY MILLING CO., ET AL.

    056 Phil 117

  • G.R. No. 34163 September 18, 1931 - GREGORIO PEDRO v. PROVINCIAL BOARD OF RIZAL, ET AL.

    056 Phil 123

  • G.R. No. 34574 September 19, 1931 - CIRILO ABELLA v. MARIANO GONZAGA

    056 Phil 132

  • G.R. No. 34385 September 21, 1931 - ALEJANDRA TORRES, ET AL. v. FRANCISCO LIMJAP

    056 Phil 141

  • G.R. No. 34774 September 21, 1931 - EL ORIENTE, FABRICA DE TABACOS, INC. v. JUAN POSADAS

    056 Phil 147

  • G.R. No. 30756 September 22, 1931 - ENRIQUE BRIAS DE COYA v. TAN LUA, ET AL.

    056 Phil 153

  • G.R. No. 34962 September 22, 1931 - GOVERNMENT OF THE PHIL. v. BANK OF THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS

    056 Phil 165

  • G.R. No. 35246 September 22, 1931 - CENTRAL AZUCARERA DE TARLAR v. RICARDO DE LEON, ET AL.

    056 Phil 169

  • G.R. No. 34906 September 23, 1931 - FERNANDEZ HERMANOS v. DIRECTOR OF LANDS, ET AL.

    057 Phil 929

  • G.R. No. 34840 September 23, 1931 - NARCISO GUTIERREZ v. BONIFACIO GUTIERREZ

    056 Phil 177

  • G.R. No. 34401 September 24, 1931 - DEE HAO KIM v. LEON BUSIANG, ET AL.

    056 Phil 181

  • G.R. No. 34642 September 24, 1931 - FABIOLA SEVERINO v. GUILLERMO SEVERINO, ET AL.

    056 Phil 185

  • G.R. No. 34960 September 25, 1931 - LA COMPAÑIA GENERAL DE TABACOS DE FILIPINAS v. MABALACAT SUGAR CO.

    057 Phil 937

  • G.R. No. 34564 September 29, 1931 - BASILIO CARIÑO v. ARSENIO JAMORALNE

    056 Phil 188