SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

Search for www.chanrobles.com

PLEASE CLICK HERE FOR THE LATEST ➔ SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

EN BANC

G.R. No. L-31883 December 3, 1929

THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS, Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. DEMETRIO CASTRO, Defendant-Appellant.

Rosario Ocampo Zamora for appellant.
Attorney-General Jaranilla for appellee.

ROMUALDEZ, J.:

The self-confessed accused, Demetrio Castro, having been charged and convicted of the crime of theft and habitual delinquency in the lower court, was sentenced to six months and one day of presidio correccional, to pay an indemnity of P6.18, to suffer subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency, to pay the costs, and to an additional imprisonment of sixteen years.chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library

He appeals to this court from said judgment. His attorney de oficio, in his brief presented therein, and the accused himself, in a letter addressed to this court, without discussing the merits of the case, limit themselves to imploring this court not to impose upon him the additional penalty under Act No. 3397, because he pleaded guilty, he has a family, and his coaccused have already served their sentences.chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library

The plea of guilty is not, under our existing penal laws, a cause for mitigating the criminal liability. Even granting for a moment that the provisions of the Penal Code are applicable to Act No. 3397 (they are not, according to the Code itself and to the ruling of this court: article 7, Penal Code; U. S. vs. Calaguas, 14 Phil., 739; U. S. vs. Lao Lock Hing, 14 Phil., 86), the truth is that the plea of guilty is not one of the circumstances impliedly recognized in article 9, No. 8, of the Penal Code. (Decision of the Supreme Court of Spain of February 23, 1872; I-Hidalgo, Penal Code, 175; U. S. vs. Ablaza, 1 Phil., 740.)chanrobles virtual law library

Neither may the courts consider the fact that the accused has a family as a mitigating circumstance, just as neither old age nor being deaf and dumb is considered as such. (Decisions of the Supreme Court of Spain of December 23, 1872, and March 20, 1903; I-Hidalgo, Penal Code, 175, 178-179.) chanrobles virtual law library

The fact that the coaccused of the appellant have already served their sentences is no reason for not applying to him the law in accordance with the result of the prosecution against him.chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library

The Attorney-General recommends that, there being no circumstance modifying the act, the penalty should be imposed in its medium degree and the indemnity should be P6.28, pursuant to the information to which the accused pleaded guilty. We find this considerations well-founded.chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library

Wherefore, the judgment appealed from is modified, and the appellant is hereby sentenced to two years, four months and one day of presidio correccional, with the accessaries provided in article 58 of the Penal Code; to indemnify the offended party in the sum of P6.28, with subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency; to pay the costs, and to suffer an additional imprisonment of sixteen years. So ordered.chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library

Avanceña, C.J., Johnson, Ostrand, Johns and Villa-Real, JJ., concur.