People v. Cornelio
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: The appellant, Walfredo Cornelio y Sarmiento, along with two others, was charged with theft in the municipal court of Manila. The information alleged that on or about May 27, 1930, they conspired to steal a bolt of English woolen cloth valued at P144 from Ponciano Austria. The information also stated that the accused were habitual delinquents, having prior convictions for theft and qualified theft. Procedural History: The accused were found guilty by the municipal judge. Walfredo Cornelio y Sarmiento was sentenced to six months and one day of presidio correccional, costs, and an additional sixteen years for being a habitual delinquent. He appealed to the Court of First Instance (CFI). In the CFI, he pleaded not guilty, was tried, found guilty of theft and being a habitual delinquent under Act No. 3397, and sentenced to four years, two months, and one day of presidio correccional, with accessory penalties and costs, plus an additional three years for being a habitual delinquent. He appealed this sentence. The Petition: The case was initially submitted to a division of the Supreme Court. However, a question of the division's jurisdiction was raised, leading to its referral to the Court en banc. The appellant presented a question of fact only.
Issue(s)
Whether a division of the Supreme Court, having jurisdiction to hear an appeal, can retain jurisdiction to decide the case when the evidence indicates a sentence greater than the division's authority to impose. Whether the appellant is guilty of the crime of theft. Whether the appellant is a habitual delinquent under Act No. 3397, as amended.
Ruling
The sentence appealed from is modified. The appellant is sentenced to suffer an additional penalty of ten years' imprisonment under Act No. 3397, as amended. The sentence is affirmed with this modification and costs.
Ratio Decidendi
On the jurisdiction of a division: The Court en banc, after full consideration, decided that if a division has jurisdiction to consider a case on appeal, it may retain that jurisdiction for the purpose of deciding the appeal, even if the record shows that a penalty of more than ten years' imprisonment should be imposed. This rule has one exception: a division may never impose the death penalty, as cases involving the death sentence must always be decided by the Court en banc. This principle was established in People vs. Rodriguez (G.R. No. 35285, October 15, 1931). On the guilt of the appellant for theft: The evidence clearly shows that the appellant is guilty of the crime of theft beyond a reasonable doubt. The manner and form of the commission of the crime were as described in the information filed against him. The Court found no reason to doubt the factual findings of the lower court regarding the commission of the theft. On habitual delinquency: The Court found that the appellant is indeed a habitual delinquent, having been previously convicted three times of the same offense. The Attorney-General recommended that an additional penalty of ten to fifteen years' imprisonment should be imposed, modifying the three-year additional penalty imposed by the lower court, given that this was the appellant's fourth conviction within a relevant period. The Court agreed with this recommendation, imposing an additional penalty of ten years' imprisonment under Act No. 3397, as amended, due to his status as a habitual delinquent and the number of his prior convictions.
Main Doctrine
A division of the Supreme Court, having acquired jurisdiction over an appeal, may retain that jurisdiction to decide the case even if the record shows that a penalty greater than what the division is authorized to impose should be meted out, with the sole exception of the death penalty, which must always be decided by the Court en banc.