Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1936 > September 1936 Decisions > G.R. No. 45178 September 30, 1936 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. BRUNO S. OCBINA, ET AL.

063 Phil 528:




PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

EN BANC

[G.R. No. 45178. September 30, 1936.]

THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. BRUNO OCBINA Y DE LOS SANTOS (alias BRUNO OCVINA) and MANUEL PAMERO, Defendants. BRUNO OCBINA Y DE LOS SANTOS (alias BRUNO OCVINA), Appellant.

Claro Reyes for Appellant.

Solicitor-General Hilado for Appellee.

SYLLABUS


1. CRIMINAL LAW AND PROCEDURE; PROTECTION OF RIGHTS OF ACCUSED; RIGHT TO COUNSEL. — The failure of the record to disclose affirmatively that the trial judge advised the accused of his right to have counsel is not sufficient ground to reverse a judgment of conviction. The reason for this doctrine is that the trial court must be presumed to have complied with the procedure prescribed by law for the hearing and trial of cases; and that such a presumption can only be overcome by an affirmative showing that the trial judge has failed to advise the accused of his right to have counsel.

2. APPEAL AND ERROR; ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR; IN CRIMINAL CASES; PENALTY; HABITUAL DELINQUENCY. — An assignment of error to the effect that the trial court erred in sentencing the defendant to suffer the penalty imposed on him, is sufficiently broad to raise the question of whether the additional penalty imposed on him for habitual delinquency was properly imposed, even though the point is not discussed in his brief.

3. CRIMINAL LAW AND PROCEDURE; COMPLAINT OR INFORMATION; SUFFICIENCY OF ALLEGATION; HABITUAL DELINQUENCY. — An allegation in an information to the effect that the accused "is an habitual delinquent, he having already been convicted three times of the crime of theft, by virtue of final judgments of a competent court, the date of his last conviction being December 13, 1935," is too general and therefore insufficient to sustain a conviction for habitual delinquency upon a plea of guilty.


D E C I S I O N


ABAD SANTOS, J.:


Appellant was prosecuted in the Court of First Instance of Manila for the crime of theft. Upon his plea of guilty, he was sentenced to suffer four months and one day of arresto mayor, and an additional penalty of six years and one day of prision mayor for habitual delinquency.

In support of this appeal counsel de oficio for the appellant contends that the lower court erred (1) in not advising the appellant of his right to have counsel; and (2) in sentencing him to suffer the penalty above indicated.

1. In United States v. Escalante (36 Phil., 743), this court held that the failure of the record to disclose affirmatively that the trial judge advised the accused of his right to have counsel is not sufficient ground to reverse a judgment of conviction. The reason for this doctrine is that the trial court must be presumed to have complied with the procedure prescribed by law for the hearing and trial of cases; and that such a presumption can only be overcome by an affirmative showing to the contrary. (U.S. v. Labial and Abuso, 27 Phil., 82; People v. Del Rosario, G.R. No. 44239, promulgated January 8, 1936 [62 Phil., 975].) In the instant case, there is no affirmative showing that the appellant was not advised of his right to have counsel. We, therefore, find no merit in the first error assigned by counsel for the Appellant.

2. Although the point is not discussed in the brief of counsel for the appellant, the second assignment of error is sufficiently broad to raise the question of whether the additional penalty of six years and one day of prision mayor for habitual delinquency was properly imposed. The only allegation in the information concerning this matter is the following:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"That the accused Bruno Ocbina y De los Santos (alias Bruno Ocvina) is an habitual delinquent, he having already been convicted three (3) times of the crime of theft, by virtue of final judgments of a competent court, the date of his last conviction being December 13, 1935."cralaw virtua1aw library

In the recent case of People v. Venus (G.R. No. 45141, p. 435, ante), this court held that an allegation of this nature in an information was too general and therefore insufficient to sustain a conviction for habitual delinquency upon a plea of guilty. It follows that the additional penalty of six years and one day of prision mayor imposed on the appellant must be eliminated from the judgment below.

Modified as above indicated the judgment is affirmed with costs de oficio in this instance. So ordered.

Avanceña, C.J., Villa-Real, Imperial, Diaz and Laurel, JJ., concur.




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-1936 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. 42258 September 5, 1936 - IN RE: VICTORIO PAYAD v. AQUILINA TOLENTINO

    063 Phil 395

  • G.R. No. 45174 September 5, 1936 - MAURICIO CRUZ & CO., INC. v. MARCELIANO R. MONTEMAYOR, ET AL.

    063 Phil 404

  • G.R. No. 44861 September 8, 1936 - EUGENIO TESTA v. C.A. VILLAREAL, ET AL.

    063 Phil 409

  • G.R. No. 43206 September 9, 1936 - FELIX SEPAGAN v. PAULINO DACILLO

    063 Phil 412

  • G.R. No. 43367 September 9, 1936 - MARIETA GARCIA, ET AL. v. TERESA GARCIA DE BARTOLOME

    063 Phil 419

  • G.R. No. 45134 September 10, 1936 - GENANICHI ISHI v. PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION

    063 Phil 428

  • Adm. Case No. 786 September 15, 1936 - TRANQUILINO MARAVILLA v. CORNELIO T. VILLAREAL

    063 Phil 432

  • G.R. No. 45141 September 15, 1936 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. BIENVENIDO VENUS

    063 Phil 435

  • G.R. No. 45089 September 17, 1936 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. DOMINADOR A. FLORES

    063 Phil 443

  • G.R. No. 45116 September 17, 1936 - GO OCCO & CO. v. SIXTO DE LA COSTA, ET AL.

    063 Phil 445

  • G.R. No. 45125 September 17, 1936 - RICARDO CARREON v. M. BUYSON LAMPA, ET AL.

    063 Phil 449

  • G.R. No. 45131 September 17, 1936 - RAMON SANTARROMANA, ET AL. v. CONRADO BARRIOS, ET AL.

    063 Phil 456

  • G.R. No. 45224 September 17, 1936 - MARIA D. CABUHAT v. MARCELIANO R. MONTEMAYOR, ET AL.

    063 Phil 460

  • G.R. No. 45220 September 18, 1936 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. TOMAS TAPEL

    063 Phil 464

  • G.R. No. 45250 September 21, 1936 - GERVASIA ENCARNACION, ET AL. v. PROVINCIAL SHERIFF OF RIZAL, ET AL.

    063 Phil 467

  • G.R. No. 45282 September 21, 1936 - BENITO MATEO v. INSULAR COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS, ET AL.

    063 Phil 470

  • G.R. No. 45129 September 24, 1936 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ANACLETO FOLLANTES, ET AL.

    063 Phil 474

  • G.R. No. 45252 September 24, 1936 - MANUEL RODRIGUEZ v. LEOPOLDO ROVIRA, ET AL.

    063 Phil 476

  • G.R. No. 42884 September 28, 1936 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ARTEMIO CASTAÑEDA, ET AL.

    063 Phil 480

  • G.R. No. 41376 September 29, 1936 - GOVERNMENT OF THE PHIL. v. JUAN ABALOS, ET AL.

    063 Phil 494

  • G.R. No. 43101 September 29, 1936 - CIRIACO CHUNACO v. DELFINA TRIA, ET AL.

    063 Phil 500

  • G.R. No. 42832 September 30, 1936 - LOURDES CATALA v. NEMESIO MONTEVERDE, ET AL.

    063 Phil 503

  • G.R. No. 43486 September 30, 1936 - MUNICIPALITY OF GASAN v. MIGUEL MARASIGAN, ET AL.

    063 Phil 510

  • G.R. No. 43824 September 30, 1936 - LEOCADIA SALOMON, ET AL. v. FRANCISCO DANTES

    063 Phil 522

  • G.R. No. 44523 September 30, 1936 - ALEOSAN TRANSPORTATION COMPANY, INC. v. PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, ET AL.

    063 Phil 523

  • G.R. No. 44934 September 30, 1936 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. FILEMON FRESCO

    063 Phil 526

  • G.R. No. 45178 September 30, 1936 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. BRUNO S. OCBINA, ET AL.

    063 Phil 528

  • G.R. No. 45186 September 30, 1936 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JOSEFINA BANDIAN

    063 Phil 530