7/23/2015 G.R.No.L45466

http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1937/jun1937/gr_l45466_1937.html 1/3

TodayisThursday,July23,2015

RepublicofthePhilippinesSUPREMECOURT

Manila

ENBANC

G.R.No.L45466June30,1937

THEPEOPLEOFTHEPHILIPPINES,plaintiffappellee,vs.LOPEHERMINOYLIMOSA(aliasLOPEGERMINO),defendantappellant.

TyKongTinforappellant.OfficeoftheSolicitorGeneralTuasonforappellee.

DIAZ,J.:

LopeHerminoyLimosa(aliasLopeGermino)waschargedwith theftand latersentencedby theCourtofFirstInstance of Manila to suffer one month and one day of arresto mayor with them corresponding accessorypenaltiestoindemnifytheownerofthestolenarticlesinthesumofP15.17,andsufferalsotheadditionalpenaltyofsixyearsandonedayofprisionmayor,beingahabitualdelinquent.Notsatisfiedwiththesentenceimposeduponhim,theaccusedappealedtherefromand,quotingfromhisbrief,nowcontendsinthisinstancethat:

I.Thelowercourterredindecidingthatthedefendant'sspontaneouspleaofguiltyhasbeencompensatedbyrecidivism.

II. The lower court erred in imposing upon the defendant an additional penalty not in accordance withallegationoftheinformation.

Aproposofthefirstquestionraisedbytheappellant, theSolicitorGeneral, inturn,raisesthisotherone:Shouldtheappellant'spleaofguilty,enteredintheCourtofFirstInstancewhichtriedthecaseonappeal,betakenintoconsiderationinhisfavor,notwithstandingthefactthathehadgonetotrialinthemunicipalcourt,presentinghisownevidencethereinafterthepromotorfiscalhadpresentedhis?

Thisisacaseofanappellantwhich,afterhavingbeenchargedwiththecrimeoftheftbyvirtueofaninformationfiledby theofficeof the city fiscal ofManila in themunicipal court of said city,went to trial, thus requiring thepresentation,inanordinarytrial,ofevidencetosubstantiatehiscase.Asaresult,judgmentwasrenderedagainsthim, having been found guilty of theft by said court. From said judgment, he appealed to the Court of FirstInstance of Manila which he was charged and sentenced him to the abovestated penalties, after havingpermittedhimtosubstitutehisformerpleaofnotguiltyforthatofguilty.Thisappealwasinterposedbyhimtosetasidetheforegoingsentence.

The information,whichgave rise to thecaseandwas theoneansweredby theappellant in theCourtofFirstInstanceofManila,pleadingguiltyofthecrimechargedtherein,readsasfollows:

That on or about the 26th day of December, 1936, in the City of Manila, Philippine Islands, the saidaccuseddidthenandtherewillfully,unlawfullyandfeloniously,withintentofgainandwithouttheconsentofthe owner thereof, take, steal carry away one leather pocketbook, valued at P1 containing cash in theamountofP14.17,belongingtoMrs.W.G.Schindler,tothedamageandprejudiceofthesaidownerinthetotalsumofP15.17,Philippinecurrency.

That the said accused has previously been convicted three times of the crime of theft by virtue of finaljudgmentsrenderedbycompetentcourt,asfollows:

CriminalcaseNo.Dateof

commissionofcrime

Dateofconviction

Dateofrelease Penalty

MunicipalCourt

7/23/2015 G.R.No.L45466

http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1937/jun1937/gr_l45466_1937.html 2/3

H5055 Jan.20,1934 Jan.20,1934 Apr.7,1934 2months,1day

CourtofFirstInstanceofManilaD52639 June28,1936 July3,1936 Oct.1936 4months,1day

MunicipalCourtH56458 June29,1936 July6,1936 Dec.20,1936 2months,1day

andisthereforeahabitualdelinquentundertheprovisionsofarticle62,paragraph5,oftheRevisedPenalCode,thedateofhisreleasefromconfinementinconnectionwithhislastoffensebeingDecember20,1936.

Itwill be seen that, although the information in question contains no express allegation that the appellant is arecidivist,itstatesinthesecondparagraphthereof(a)thathewasconvictedonceofthecrimeoftheftonJanuary20,1934,andsentencedthereforonsaiddatetotwomonthsandonedayofarrestomayorthatheextinguishedsaidpenaltyonApril7,1934and(b)thathewaslikewiseconvictedofothertwocrimesoftheftonJuly3and6,1936, respectively, longafterhehadservedhis firstsentence that insaid twocaseshewassentenced to thepenalties of four months and one day and two months and one day of arresto mayor, respectively that heextinguishedhis twosentencesonDecember201936.This fact is, in itselfequivalent toanallegation that theappellant is a recidivist, as no other thing can be inferred from said allegations than that had been previouslyconvictedbyfinal judgmentofcrimesembracedinthesametitleof theRevisedPenalCode.But,ofhowmanycrimeswasheconvictedby final judgment for thepurposesof rule5ofarticle62of theRevisedPenalCode,whichtreatsofhabitualdelinquency?

Itshouldbenotedthatbetweentheappellant'scommissionofoneandhiscommissionoftheotherofhislasttwocrimes,andbetweenhisprosecutionfortheformerandhisprosecutionforthelatter,hardlyonedayhadelapsedin the first and three days in the last case. This shows that when he was prosecuted for his last crime, thejudgmentrenderedinthecaseinstitutedagainsthimforhisnextprecedingcrimehadnotyetbecomefinalandthisissobecausejudgmentsdonorbecomefinaluntilaftertheexpirationoftheperiodoffifteendaysallowedtheaccusedtointerposeanappeal.Underthelaw,therecanbenorecidivismexceptwhentheaccused,atthetimeofhistrialforonecrime,shallhavebeenpreviouslyconvictedbyfinaljudgmentofanothercrimeembracedinthesametitleoftheCode(art14,subsec.9,oftheRevisedPenalCode).Consequently,theanswertothequestionisthatwhentheappellantcommittedhislastcrime,hewasarecidivistonlyforthethirdtime.

As to thequestionwhetherornotheappellant'spleaofguilty,entered in theCourtofFirst InstanceofManila,shouldbecompensatedbytheaggravatingcircumstancesofrecidivism,whichthiscourtdeclarestohavebeenproven, itshouldbeborne inmind that thespiritof the law iswhatmayreasonablybe inferred fromthe termsthereof.Theseventhmitigatingcircumstancereads:

Thattheoffenderhadvoluntarilysurrenderedhimselftoapersoninauthorityorhisagent,orthathehadvoluntarilyconfessedhisguiltbeforethecourtpriortothepresentationoftheevidencefortheprosecution.

In the case under consideration, the appellant confessed his crime after the prosecution had presented itsevidence,at least in themunicipalcourtwherethecaseoriginated. Itcannotbesatedthat theappeal takenbyhimtotheCourtofFirstInstancesagainrestoredthecasetoitsoriginaldenovo,thatis,thattherehadbeennopresentationofevidencebeforeheconfessedoradmittedhiscrime,becauseatrialdenovogivetheimpressionandnecessarilyimpliestheexistenceofaprevioustrial.Ontheotherhand,thetermsofthelawexpresslyrequirethattheconfession,inorderconstituteamitigatingcircumstace,mustnotonlybespontaneousbutalsobemadepriortothepresentationoftheevidencefortheprosecution(art.13,subsec.7RevisedPenalCode).

As this court stated in the case ofPeople vs.De laCruz (63Phil., 874), the reason for the existence of saidmitigatingcircumstanceisthatitrevealstoacertainextentanactofrepentance,amoraldispositionfavorabletohis reformand submission to the law.This reason cannot be said to exist in the appellant's casebecausehewishedneither toacknowledgehis crimenor to repentwhenhis first opportunity came, that is, during the trialgrantedhim in themunicipalcourt.Consequently,aftereliminating themitigatingcircumstanceofconfessionofguilt the aggravating circumstance of recidivism remains uncompensated and, under the circumstances, thepenaltythatshouldbeimposeduponhimisarrestomayor initsmaximumperiod,orfromfourmonthsandonedaytosixmonths(arts.308and309,subsec.5,inconnectionwithart.64,rule3,oftherevisedPenalCode).

FollowingthedoctrinelaiddowninthecaseofPeoplevs.Santiago(55Phil.,266)Peoplevs.DelaRama(G.R.No.43744,62Phil.,972)Peoplevs.Venus (63Phil.,435)andPeoplevs.Tapel (63Phil., 464), theappellantcannotbeahabitualdelinquentbyreasonofhishavingbeenarecidivistforthefourthtime,butonlyforthethirdtime,anddeserved,therefore,theleastadditionalpenaltyprescribedinarticle62,subsection5,paragraph(a),orprisioncorreccionalinitsmediumandmaximumperiods.

For the foregoing reasons, theappealed judgment ismodifiedbysentencing theappellant to fourmonthsandonedayofarrestomayor,plus theadditionalpenaltyof twoyears, fourmonthsandoneday,affirming it inallotherrespects,withthecoststotheappellant.Soordered.

7/23/2015 G.R.No.L45466

http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1937/jun1937/gr_l45466_1937.html 3/3

Avancea,C.J.,VillaReal,Imperial,LaurelandConcepcion,JJ.,concur.

SeparateOpinions

ABADSANTOS,J.,dissenting:

ForthereasonstatedinmaydissentingopinioninPeoplevs.Bawasanta(G.R.No.45467,June30,1937,p.413post),IamoftheopinionthattheappellantisentitledtohaveconsideredinhisfavorthemitigatingcircumstanceofhavingpleadedguiltyintheCourtofFirstInstance.

TheLawphilProjectArellanoLawFoundation