Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1936 > September 1936 Decisions > G.R. No. 45089 September 17, 1936 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. DOMINADOR A. FLORES

063 Phil 443:




PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

EN BANC

[G.R. No. 45089. September 17, 1936.]

THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. DOMINADOR FLORES Y AGUILAR, Defendant-Appellant.

Artemio M. Lobrin for Appellant.

Acting Solicitor-General Melencio for Appellee.

SYLLABUS


1. CRIMINAL LAW; THEFT; HABITUAL DELINQUENCY; PLEA OF GUILTY WHICH DOES NOT IMPLY ADMISSION OF HABITUAL DELINQUENCY NOT SUFFICIENTLY PROVEN. — The defendant-appellant does not assign as error the fact that he was declared a habitual delinquent and sentenced to the corresponding additional penalty by the trial court. Having pleaded guilty of the crime of frustrated theft with which he is charged in the information, and having admitted thereby only the facts alleged therein, which facts are insufficient to prove the existence of habitual delinquency because neither the dates of the former convictions nor those of the commission of the crimes of which he was convicted are specified in said information, the additional penalty prescribed for habitual delinquency cannot be imposed upon him and, therefore, the court a quo committed an error of law in declaring the defendant-appellant a habitual delinquent. (Numerous decisions of this court cited.)


D E C I S I O N


VILLA-REAL, J.:


This is an appeal taken by the accused Dominador Flores y Aguilar from the judgment of the Court of First Instance of Manila finding him self-confessed and guilty of the crime of frustrated theft provided for and punished in article 309, case 5, in connection with article 50, of the Revised Penal code, and sentencing him to the principal penalty of eleven days of arresto menor and the additional penalty of two years, four months and one day of prision correccional for being a habitual delinquent, with the accessory penalties of the law and costs.

In support of his appeal, the appellant contends that the court a quo erred in sentencing him to the principal penalty of eleven days of arresto menor.

The penalty prescribed by article 309, case 5, of the Revised Penal Code for the crime of consummated theft is arresto mayor to its full extent, if the value of the thing stolen is over P5 but does not exceed P50. As the crime of which the defendant-appellant pleaded guilty is frustrated theft, the penalty which should be imposed upon him is the one next lower in degree to arresto mayor, which is arresto menor, in accordance with the provisions of article 50, in connection with articles 61 and 70 of said Code. Inasmuch as the aggravating circumstance of recidivism (art. 14, subsec. 7, of said Code), was present at the commission of the crime, said penalty of arresto menor should be imposed in its medium period, or from eleven to twenty days of arresto menor, pursuant to rules 1 and 4 of article 64 of said Code. The principal penalty imposed by the trial court is, therefore, in accordance with law.

The defendant-appellant does not assign as error the fact that he was declared a habitual delinquent and imposed the corresponding additional penalty by the trial court. Having pleaded guilty of the crime of frustrated theft with which he is charged in the information, and having admitted thereby only the facts alleged therein, which facts are insufficient to prove the existence of habitual delinquency because neither the dates of the former convictions nor those of the commission of the crimes of which he was convicted are specified in said information, the additional penalty prescribed for habitual delinquency cannot be imposed upon him and, therefore, the court a quo committed an error of law in declaring the defendant-appellant a habitual delinquent. (People v. Santiago, 55 Phil., 266; People v. De la Cruz, G.R. No. 33786, promulgated February 7, 1931, not reported; People v. Ventura, 56 Phil., 1; Paguntalan v. Director of Prisons, 57 Phil., 140; People v. Morales, 61 Phil., 222; People v. Artigas, G.R. No. 43901, promulgated November 27, 1935 [62 Phil., 972]; People v. De la Rama, G.R. No. 43744, promulgated November 27, 1935 [62 Phil., 972]; People v. Venus, p. 435. ante.)

Wherefore, the appealed sentence is reversed in so far as it declares the accused a habitual delinquent and imposes the corresponding additional penalty upon him, and it is affirmed in all other respects, with the costs of both instances to the appellant. So ordered.

Avanceña, C.J., Abad Santos, 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