People v. Navales
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: The appellant, Jose Navales y Calalang, confessed to the crime of taking a piece of ham valued at P3.20 from the Quinta Market in Manila without the owner's consent. The evidence of record and his confession established his guilt. Procedural History: The appellant was found guilty of the offense. The Petition: The appellant contended that the imposition of the additional penalty prescribed in Article 62 of the Revised Penal Code upon a habitual delinquent is discretionary on the part of the court.
Issue(s)
Whether the imposition of the additional penalty for habitual delinquency under Article 62 of the Revised Penal Code is discretionary. Whether the appellant, as a habitual delinquent, should suffer the additional penalty prescribed by law.
Ruling
The Court ruled that the imposition of the additional penalty for habitual delinquency is mandatory, not discretionary. The appellant was sentenced to two months and one day of arresto mayor for the offense, and to suffer the additional penalty of ten years and one day of prision mayor as a habitual delinquent. The judgment was modified accordingly.
Ratio Decidendi
On whether the imposition of the additional penalty for habitual delinquency is discretionary: The Court held that the appellant's contention is erroneous in view of the express and unequivocal provisions of Article 62 of the Revised Penal Code. These provisions mandate that habitual delinquents must be punished not only with the penalty prescribed for the offense but also with the additional penalty specified therein. The law grants courts only the discretion to fix the additional penalty within the limits set by the article, considering the facts and circumstances of each case. The Court cited People vs. Tanyaquin and People vs. Chua Buan in support of this interpretation. Therefore, the imposition of the additional penalty is a legal consequence of being a habitual delinquent, not a matter of judicial discretion. On whether the appellant should suffer the additional penalty: The Court found that the appellant had been convicted once of estafa and four times of theft, finishing his last sentence only two years and five months prior to the commission of the current offense. This established him as a habitual delinquent. According to paragraph (c) of rule 5 of Article 62 of the Revised Penal Code, considering his recidivism for the sixth time and his status as a habitual delinquent, the additional penalty should be prision mayor in its maximum period to reclusion temporal in its minimum period. The Court, however, modified the judgment by imposing the penalty for the offense and the additional penalty for habitual delinquency, taking into account the aggravating circumstance of recidivism compensated by the mitigating circumstance of voluntary confession of guilt.
Main Doctrine
The imposition of the additional penalty for habitual delinquency under Article 62 of the Revised Penal Code is mandatory, with the court's discretion limited to fixing the penalty within the prescribed limits.