People v. Ibasco
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: The accused, Ireneo Ibasco y Cabares, was charged with qualified theft for unlawfully taking a motor vehicle owned by Buenaventura R. Nadres and insured by Firemen's Insurance Company and Commercial Casualty Insurance Company. The vehicle was recovered in a damaged condition, causing prejudice to the owner and insurers in the sum of P1,280. The accused had a prior conviction for theft on February 21, 1948, by the Justice of the Peace of Caloocan, sentenced to one month and one day imprisonment. Procedural History: Upon arraignment, the accused pleaded not guilty. However, during the trial, he withdrew his plea and pleaded guilty. The trial court convicted him under Article 310 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended by Republic Act No. 120, considering the mitigating circumstance of a plea of guilty and the aggravating circumstance of recidivism. He was sentenced to an indeterminate penalty of four (4) years, nine (9) months, and eleven (11) days of prison correccional to nine (9) years, four (4) months, and one (1) day of prision mayor, to indemnify the offended parties, and to pay costs. The Petition: The accused appealed the decision, assigning as errors the lower court's finding of the aggravating circumstance of recidivism and the imposition of the indeterminate penalty for qualified theft.
Issue(s)
Whether the information sufficiently alleged the aggravating circumstance of recidivism. Whether the indeterminate penalty imposed for qualified theft was correct.
Ruling
The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the lower court. The penalty imposed was deemed correct and is hereby affirmed, with costs against the appellant.
Ratio Decidendi
On the sufficiency of the allegation of recidivism: The Court held that the information sufficiently alleged recidivism. The second paragraph of the information explicitly stated that the accused was previously sentenced for the crime of Theft by the Justice of the Peace of Caloocan on February 21, 1948. This averment of former conviction is a sufficient allegation of recidivism without the need to explicitly state the conclusion that the accused is a recidivist. The Court cited U.S. vs. Burlado to support the principle that the allegation of former convictions is sufficient without stating the conclusion. On the indeterminate penalty for qualified theft: The Court found the penalty imposed by the trial court to be correct. The crime charged falls under Article 310 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended by Republic Act No. 120, because the property stolen was a motor vehicle. Although the actual value of the automobile was not alleged, the Court accepted the amount of P1,280, representing actual and consequential damages, as the basis for determining the penalty. The penalty imposed, considering the mitigating circumstance of the plea of guilty and the aggravating circumstance of recidivism, was in accordance with the law.
Main Doctrine
The averment of a former conviction in an information, without explicitly stating the conclusion that the accused is a recidivist, is a sufficient allegation of recidivism. The mitigating circumstance of a plea of guilty is offset by the aggravating circumstance of recidivism.