People v. Francisco
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: The defendant-appellant, Demetrio Francisco y Gaac, was charged with an offense. The defense counsel admitted that all allegations in the information were established and that the sentence imposed by the trial court was justified. Procedural History: The trial court imposed a sentence upon the defendant. The Petition: The defense counsel insinuated, without insistence, that the case should be remanded to the trial court because the judgment contained no finding of facts, citing United States vs. Avilar. The defense also noted that while the Revised Penal Code provided less severe penalties than the laws in force when the crime was committed, the defendant, being a habitual criminal, did not fall under the favorable provisions of Article 22 of the Revised Penal Code.
Issue(s)
Whether the case should be remanded to the trial court for failure to make specific findings of fact in the judgment. Whether the penalties under the Revised Penal Code should be applied despite the defendant being a habitual criminal.
Ruling
The judgment appealed from is modified. The appellant is sentenced to four years, two months, and one day of prision correctional, and three years' additional imprisonment for his habitual delinquency, together with the costs of both instances.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of remanding the case for failure to make specific findings of fact: The Court held that the ruling in United States vs. Avilar is not applicable to the present case. While the judgment was brief, it contained the finding that the accused was guilty of the offense charged. Furthermore, the failure to make findings upon the facts does not necessarily require a reversal if the facts found are sufficient to support the judgment, as established in Pastor vs. Gaspar. The defense counsel themselves admitted that all allegations of the information were established and the sentence imposed was justified, rendering the procedural issue moot. On the issue of applying penalties under the Revised Penal Code: The Court ruled that although both the principal and additional penalties for habitual delinquency are less severe under the Revised Penal Code than under the laws in force when the crime was committed, the defendant, being a habitual criminal, does not come under the favorable provisions of Article 22 of the Revised Penal Code. Therefore, the penal laws in force at the time the crime was committed must be applied. The Court agreed with the Attorney-General's recommendation as to the proper penalty. For the crime prosecuted, defined and penalized under Article 518, No. 4 of the Penal Code, as amended by Act No. 3244, in connection with Article 520 of said Code, the appellant deserves the medium degree of the corresponding penalty due to the absence of any modifying circumstance. For habitual criminality, considering two prior convictions as one in light of the ruling in People vs. De la Cruz, the additional penalty of three to nine years' imprisonment must be imposed.
Main Doctrine
The penal laws in force at the time the crime was committed must be applied to a defendant who is a habitual criminal, even if subsequent laws provide for a less severe penalty, due to the exception under Article 22 of the Revised Penal Code.