People v. Tanyaquin
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: The accused, Arcadio Tanyaquin y Rico (alias Arcadio Rico), was found guilty by the Court of First Instance of Manila of the crime of theft. The value of the stolen articles was P160. Procedural History: The trial court sentenced the accused to four months and one day of arresto mayor, to pay the proportional part of the costs, to return the stolen articles, and, being an habitual delinquent, to suffer an additional penalty of ten years and one day of prision mayor. The Petition: The accused appealed the judgment, assigning errors concerning the trial court's failure to consider his plea of guilty as a mitigating circumstance and the imposition of penalties for theft and habitual delinquency.
Issue(s)
Whether the trial court erred in not considering the mitigating circumstance of a plea of guilty. Whether the trial court erred in imposing the penalty for theft and the additional penalty for habitual delinquency.
Ruling
The judgment of the trial court is affirmed with reference to the principal penalty and its accessories, and modified with reference to the additional penalty, which is reduced to four years, nine months, and ten days of prision correccional. The costs are against the appellant.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of the mitigating circumstance of a plea of guilty: The Court held that the crime of theft committed by the accused falls under Article 309, paragraph 4, of the Revised Penal Code, with a penalty of arresto mayor in the medium degree to prision correccional in the minimum degree. While the spontaneous plea of guilty is a mitigating circumstance under Article 13, paragraph 7, it is offset by the aggravating circumstance of recidivism under Article 14, paragraph 9. Consequently, the penalty must be imposed in the medium degree, which is four months and one day to six months of arresto mayor, as if there were no modifying circumstances, pursuant to Article 64, paragraph 1. The penalty of four months and one day of arresto mayor imposed by the trial court falls within this medium degree, thus, the trial court did not commit the first error assigned. On the issue of the additional penalty for habitual delinquency: The Court clarified that for the purpose of determining habitual delinquency under Article 62, paragraph 5, of the Revised Penal Code, only convictions within ten years preceding the commission of the offense are considered. The accused had two prior convictions that could be counted: one for simple theft and domestic theft (treated as one conviction as the latter was committed before conviction for the former), and another for qualified theft, qualified theft, theft, robbery, and simple theft (also treated as one conviction for the same reason). The third offense is the subject of the present appeal. The Court further ruled that modifying circumstances present in the commission of the last prosecuted crime cannot be taken into account to increase or decrease the additional penalty for habitual delinquency. These circumstances have already influenced the principal penalty. The additional penalty is imposed based on the sound judgment of the court, without considering these modifying circumstances. The Court imposed an additional penalty of four years, nine months, and ten days of prision correccional, considering the sound judgment of the trial court.
Main Doctrine
The modifying circumstances of the principal offense should not be considered in fixing the additional penalty for habitual delinquency, as such circumstances have already been considered in determining the principal penalty. The additional penalty for habitual delinquency is left to the sound judgment of the court.