People v. Soriano
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: On March 6, 1931, in Manila, Pedro Soriano y Sison was charged with frustrated theft for attempting to steal a fighting rooster valued at P15 from Antonio Borja. The accused was in the act of carrying away the rooster when Borja arrived, causing the accused to release the rooster and flee. The accused was apprehended by a policeman. Procedural History: The Court of First Instance of Manila found the defendant guilty of attempted theft. He was sentenced to a fine of 325 pesetas (P65) with subsidiary imprisonment, costs, and an additional penalty of twenty-one years' imprisonment as a habitual criminal under Act No. 3586, subsection (d). The Petition: The defendant appealed the decision, raising two issues: the sufficiency of evidence for conviction and the constitutionality of the Habitual Delinquency Law.
Issue(s)
Whether the evidence is sufficient to sustain a conviction for attempted theft. Whether Act No. 3586 (Law on Habitual Delinquency) is unconstitutional on grounds of being ex post facto, discriminatory, and imposing double penalty.
Ruling
The judgment of the Court of First Instance is affirmed in its entirety. The accused is guilty of attempted theft and is sentenced as a habitual criminal under Act No. 3586.
Ratio Decidendi
On the sufficiency of evidence: The evidence presented clearly established the facts of the case, supporting the finding of the defendant's guilt for attempted theft. The record shows that the appellant went to the complainant's veranda, attempted to steal the game cock by untying it with the intent to take it away, and was only prevented by the timely arrival of the complainant. Upon being discovered, the appellant fled, was pursued, and subsequently apprehended. These actions constitute the performance of all acts of execution which would have resulted in theft, but for causes independent of the appellant's will. On the constitutionality of Act No. 3586: The Court reiterated its previous rulings that Act No. 3586, the law on habitual delinquency, is valid and constitutional. The contentions that the law is ex post facto, discriminatory, or imposes a double penalty were found to be without merit. The Court cited previous decisions, including People vs. Sierra, People vs. Ortezuela, People vs. Madrano, and People vs. Montera, which upheld the constitutionality of the law. Furthermore, in People vs. Abuyen, it was held that the law is applicable to both consummated and frustrated or attempted crimes, thus covering the present case of attempted theft.
Main Doctrine
The law on habitual delinquency (Act No. 3586) is constitutional and applicable to attempted crimes. Prior convictions for theft and attempted robbery within a ten-year period establish habitual criminality.