Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1936 > September 1936 Decisions > G.R. No. 45220 September 18, 1936 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. TOMAS TAPEL

063 Phil 464:




PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

EN BANC

[G.R. No. 45220. September 18, 1936.]

THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. TOMAS TAPEL, Defendant-Appellant.

The appellant in his own behalf.

Solicitor-General Hilado for Appellee.

SYLLABUS


1. CRIMINAL PROCEDURE; ADMISSIONS INFERRED FROM A PLEA OF GUILTY. — If an accused, upon arraignment, pleads guilty of the crime charged in the information, it is necessarily understood that he admits not only his guilt but also all the material facts alleged therein.

2. ID.; ID.; ALLEGATIONS TO THE EFFECT THAT ACCUSED IS HABITUAL DELINQUENT. — If the allegations to the effect that the accused is a habitual delinquent merely state that he was previously convicted twice of simple theft and four times of qualified theft, without mentioning either the dates of the commission thereof except that of the last crime, the dates of his convictions or the dates of his release, the confession of the accused merely implies admission on his part that he is a recidivist. In order that he may be declared a self-confessed habitual delinquent under such circumstances, the information must state the dates of the commission of the previous crimes of the accused, the dates of his convictions and those of his release.

3. ID.; ID.; PRACTICE THAT PROSECUTING ATTORNEYS MUST FOLLOW. — Prosecuting attorneys should take care that in preparing their information in cases wherein an averment of habitual delinquency must be made against the accused, the dates of the commission of his previous crimes, the dates of his convictions and those of his release are expressed so as to avoid the inconveniences stated in the case of People v. Venus (page 435, ante).


D E C I S I O N


DIAZ, J.:


Tomas Tapel was charged with the convicted of the crime of theft and sentenced by the Court of First Instance of Manila to one month and one day of arresto mayor, to indemnify Hamilton Brown, owner of the stolen articles, in the sum of P14, with the corresponding subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency, and to pay the costs of the suit. Being a habitual delinquent, he was furthermore sentenced to an additional penalty of ten years and one day of prision mayor.

Not agreeing to his sentence, Tomas Tapel appealed therefrom, alleging that the lower court committed the three errors relied upon in his brief as follows:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"I. In taking into consideration, for the purposes of a conviction under article 62, subsection 5, of the Revised Penal Code, and to declare him a habitual delinquent, the evidence presented in the municipal court wherein this case was originally brought, said court not being a court of record in accordance with law.

"II. In not taking into account the information filed in this case and the defendant’s spontaneous plea of ’guilty’ made therein in open court, and

"III. In imposing upon him an excessive penalty contrary to and outside the law."cralaw virtua1aw library

When the appellant was arraigned in the lower court, he spontaneously confessed having committed the crime with which he was charged therein, thereby admitting not only his guilt but also all the material facts alleged against him. One of said facts is that he had been previously convicted twice of the crime of simple theft and four times of the crime of qualified theft, but the information is silent as to the dates of said convictions except one, which was December 5, 1929. It is evident, therefore, that in the commission of the crime herein imputed to the appellant, the aggravating circumstance of recidivism and the mitigating circumstance of voluntary confession, which mutually compensate each other, must be taken into account thus producing the effect of imposing the penalty corresponding to said appellant’s crime in its medium period (art. 64, rule 4, of the Revised Penal Code).

By reason of the amount involved therein, the crime imputed to the appellant is punished in article 309, subsection 5, of said Code, with arresto mayor in its full extent, and the medium period of said penalty is from two months and one day to four months.

The allegation in the information that the appellant is a habitual delinquent reads as follows:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"That the said accused is a habitual delinquent under the provisions of the Revised Penal Code, he having been previously convicted twice of the crime of theft and four times of the crime of qualified theft, by virtue of final judgments rendered by competent courts, having been last convicted on December 5, 1929."cralaw virtua1aw library

We have already stated more than once that an allegation of this nature is insufficient to warrant the conclusion that in the accused in one case pleads guilty, he actually admits that he is a habitual delinquent. In the cases of People v. Santiago (55 Phil., 266), and People v. Venus (p. 435, ante), not to mention others, we extensively stated the reasons why this is so and it is not amiss that we reiterate the recommendation made by us in the latter of said two cases. Prosecuting attorneys should take care that in preparing their informations in cases wherein an averment of habitual delinquency must be made against the accused, the dates of the commission of his previous crimes, the dates of his convictions and those of his release for service of sentence are clearly expressed so as to avoid the inconveniences stated in said case of People v. Venus.

The principal penalty that should have been imposed upon the appellant is four months of arresto mayor, which is included within the medium period of that prescribed by law.

Wherefore, the appealed judgment is modified, sentencing the appellant to four months of arresto mayor, instead of one month and one day thereof, without the additional penalty imposed upon him by the lower court, it not having been proved that he is a habitual delinquent, and it is affirmed in all other respects, with the costs to the appellant. So ordered.

Avanceña, C.J., Villa-Real, Abad Santos, Imperial, Recto 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