Add TAGS to your cases to easily locate them or to build your SYLLABUS.
Please SIGN IN to use this feature.
http://lawyerly.ph/juris/view/c1ce9?user=fbGU2WFpmaitMVEVGZ2lBVW5xZ2RVdz09
[PEOPLE v. PEDRO MASONSON Y KATIBAK](http://lawyerly.ph/juris/view/c1ce9?user=fbGU2WFpmaitMVEVGZ2lBVW5xZ2RVdz09)
{case:c1ce9}
Highlight text as FACTS, ISSUES, RULING, PRINCIPLES to generate case DIGESTS and REVIEWERS.
Please LOGIN use this feature.
Show printable version with highlights

[ GR No. 45249, Dec 29, 1936 ]

PEOPLE v. PEDRO MASONSON Y KATIBAK +

DECISION

63 Phil. 866

[ G. R. No. 45249, December 29, 1936 ]

THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS, PLAINTIFF AND APPELLEE, VS. PEDRO MASONSON Y KATIBAK (ALIAS PEDRO BALAGTAS, CRISPIN GONZALO), DEFENDANT AND APPELLANT.

D E C I S I O N

ABAD SANTOS, J.:

Appellant was charged  with the crime  of  theft and, upon  a plea of guilty, he was sentenced by  the Court of First Instance of Manila to suffer one month and one  day of arresto mayor, and to pay the costs.   He was further sentenced to  an additional penalty of ten years and  one day of prision mayor for habitual delinquency.

The only question raised by  this appeal  relates to the correctness of the imposition of the additional penalty upon the following allegation contained in  the information:
"That said accused  is a habitual delinquent  under the provisions of article  62 of  the Revised  Penal Code,  he having been  previously convicted  four  (4)  times  of the crime of theft, by final judgments of competent courts, his last date of conviction  of the crime of theft being October 8, 1935."
Upon this  point this court has held that a finding  of habitual  delinquency cannot be predicated upon a plea  of guilty to an  information which fails to specify the dates of the commission of the alleged previous offenses, the appellant's convictions  thereof, and his release thereunder. (People vs. Venus, p. 435, ante; People vs. Flores, p. 443, ante; People  vs. Tapel, p. 464, ante.)   However, a general allegation of a previous conviction is sufficient to sustain a finding of the existence of the aggravating circumstance of recidivism.  (People vs. Alcantara, G.  R. No. 39505,  58 Phil., 950; People vs. Fortaleza, G. R. No. 42871, 61 Phil., 1035; People vs. Valencia, 59 Phil., 42; People vs. Cabral, G. R. No. 39200, 58 Phil., 930; U. S.  vs. Burlado, 42 Phil., 72.)

In the view we have taken of the case, the appellant must be found guilty of the crime of theft penalized with arresto mayor in its minimum and medium periods.   (Revised Penal Code,  article 309, paragraph  6.)  The  aggravating circumstance of recidivism having been offset by the modifying circumstance of plea of guilty,  the penalty prescribed  should be imposed in its  medium period, that  is to say, from two months and one day to  three months  of arresto mayor.

The judgment below should be modified by sentencing the appellant to suffer  two months and one day of arresto mayor and by eliminating therefrom the additional penalty  imposed for habitual delinquency.

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

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

tags