People v. Tapang
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: The accused, Carlos Tapang y Sangalang, a minor 17 years of age, was charged with theft for allegedly taking a men's white gold ring studded with 4 diamond stones, valued at P250, from the shirt's pocket of Paulino Dimalanta on September 7, 1949. Procedural History: The accused pleaded not guilty. During the trial, he moved to change his plea to guilty of frustrated theft, asserting the ring was recovered from him at the time of taking. The fiscal did not oppose this, and the court, with the accused assisted by counsel, sentenced him to 6 months of arresto mayor. The Petition: The accused appealed the decision, contending that the lower court erred in failing to appreciate minority as a mitigating circumstance, despite its allegation in the information. He also argued that the lower court erred in finding him guilty of frustrated theft without considering his minority and his alleged inability to comprehend the plea of guilty.
Issue(s)
Whether minority, as alleged in the information, should be considered a mitigating circumstance despite the provisions of Republic Act No. 47. Whether the advice of counsel to plead guilty to frustrated theft, without considering the accused's minority and alleged inability to comprehend the plea, constitutes reversible error.
Ruling
The judgment appealed from is modified. The defendant is declared guilty of frustrated theft with the principal mitigating circumstance of minority (under eighteen years of age) and the voluntary confession of guilt. He is sentenced to twenty-one days of arresto menor, with accessory penalties and costs.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of minority as a mitigating circumstance: The Court held that the contention of the appellant is well taken. The Solicitor General's argument that Republic Act No. 47, by reducing the age limit in Article 80 of the Revised Penal Code for the suspension of sentence for minor delinquents, implicitly amended Article 13, paragraph 2, of the Revised Penal Code, was rejected. This Court has already decided in People vs. Garcia et al., 47 Off. Gaz., 4188, that Republic Act No. 47 did not impliedly amend the provisions of Article 13, paragraph 2, of the Revised Penal Code. The reduction of the age limit in Article 80 for the purpose of suspending sentences for minor delinquents has no bearing on the mitigating circumstances provided for in Article 13, paragraph 2, of the Revised Penal Code. Therefore, the minority of the accused, being under eighteen years of age, must be considered a principal mitigating circumstance. On the issue of the plea of guilty and the advice of counsel: The Court found this assignment of error to be without merit. The advice of the appellant's counsel de oficio to plead guilty to frustrated theft, rather than consummated theft, was not prejudicial but beneficial to the accused. The fact that the ring was recovered from the appellant at or about the time it was taken does not, in itself, transform the offense into frustrated theft; rather, it is a factor that might be considered in mitigation or in determining the penalty. The fiscal's non-objection to the change of the offense charged was based on the defendant's plea of guilty. The Court did not find that the accused was not of sufficient age to comprehend the meaning of the plea of guilty, especially when assisted by counsel.
Main Doctrine
Republic Act No. 47, which reduced the age limit for suspension of sentence for minor delinquents under Article 80 of the Revised Penal Code, does not implicitly amend Article 13, paragraph 2, of the Revised Penal Code concerning the mitigating circumstance of minority.