People v. Hipolito
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: On October 11, 1928, an information was filed charging Benito Hipolito, David Pablo, and Victorino Reyes with the crime of robbery. The information alleged that on or about September 10, 1928, in the City of Manila, the accused, by confederating and climbing the wall of an inhabited house, gained entry and unlawfully took personal property belonging to Ong Chip, valued at P50. It was also alleged that Victorino Reyes was an habitual criminal, having been previously convicted twice for theft and once for estafa. Procedural History: Benito Hipolito and David Pablo were tried first and found guilty of robbery without mitigating or aggravating circumstances. They were sentenced to 2 years, 11 months, and 11 days of presidio correccional, to indemnify Ong Chip in the sum of P50, with subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency, and to pay costs. They did not appeal. Victorino Reyes, initially not included in the trial, pleaded not guilty upon arraignment but later withdrew his plea and entered a plea of guilty. He was sentenced by the same judge to 2 years and 5 months of prision correccional, with accessory penalties, to indemnify Ong Chip in the sum of P50, with subsidiary imprisonment, and to pay costs. Victorino Reyes appealed this sentence. The Petition: Victorino Reyes appealed his sentence. The Attorney-General recommended that the penalty be increased to the maximum degree due to recidivism and that an additional penalty of 10 to 15 years of imprisonment be imposed for being an habitual criminal under Act No. 3397.
Issue(s)
Whether the penalty imposed on Victorino Reyes is in accordance with law, considering his plea of guilty and his status as an habitual criminal. Whether the aggravating circumstance of recidivism should be considered and whether an additional penalty for habitual criminality should be imposed.
Ruling
The Supreme Court modified the sentence imposed by the lower court. Victorino Reyes was sentenced to suffer 3 years, 6 months, and 21 days of presidio correccional, with accessory penalties, to indemnify the offended person in the sum of P50 or any part thereof remaining unpaid, with subsidiary improvement in case of insolvency, and to pay a proportional part of the costs. Additionally, he was sentenced to suffer an additional penalty of 10 years of imprisonment in accordance with the provisions of section 1, paragraph (b) of Act No. 3397.
Ratio Decidendi
On the penalty and habitual criminality: The Court agreed with the recommendation of the Attorney-General regarding the imposition of an additional penalty under Act No. 3397. Since the appellant pleaded guilty to the acts recited in the information, which included his status as an habitual criminal, the penalty provided by Act No. 3397 was deemed applicable. The Court found that the appellant's prior convictions constituted recidivism, which is an aggravating circumstance. Therefore, the penalty of imprisonment should be imposed in its maximum degree. The penalty imposed by the lower court (2 years and 5 months of prision correccional) was modified to 3 years, 6 months, and 21 days of presidio correccional, which is the minimum degree of the penalty for robbery, but considering the aggravating circumstance of recidivism, it was elevated to the maximum degree. On the application of Act No. 3397: The Court explicitly stated that it agreed with the Attorney-General that an additional penalty under Act No. 3397 should be imposed. This Act deals with habitual criminality, and the appellant's status as such, coupled with his plea of guilty, made the imposition of the penalty prescribed therein mandatory. The Court cited People vs. Aguinaldo (47 Phil., 728) in support of considering prior convictions as an aggravating circumstance and imposing the penalty in its maximum degree. The additional penalty of 10 years of imprisonment was imposed in accordance with section 1, paragraph (b) of Act No. 3397.
Main Doctrine
The penalty for habitual criminality under Act No. 3397 shall be imposed in addition to the penalty for the crime committed, and prior convictions constituting recidivism shall be considered an aggravating circumstance, warranting the imposition of the penalty in its maximum degree.