People v. Chang
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: The accused, Co Chang, was charged with robbery in an inhabited house. The information alleged that on November 18, 1933, in Manila, the accused forcibly broke into house No. 411 Soler, the dwelling of Catalino Ho and his family, by opening the padlock of the principal door. Once inside, he forcibly opened a locked wardrobe and stole personal property belonging to Pacita Yap, Ramon Ho Y. Chan, and Catalino Ho, with a total value of P193. The information also stated that the accused was a habitual delinquent, having been previously convicted twice of theft, with his last conviction on September 2, 1930, and release on May 4, 1933. Procedural History: The Court of First Instance of Manila found the defendant guilty and sentenced him to two years, eleven months, and eleven days of prision correccional, to return the stolen property not recovered, and to suffer an additional penalty for habitual delinquency of seven years, four months, and one day of prision mayor, plus costs. The defendant appealed. The Petition: The appellant alleged that the lower court erred in finding him responsible for the loss of a pair of earrings and two coats, and in imposing the additional penalty for habitual delinquency without considering voluntary confession of former conviction as a mitigating circumstance.
Issue(s)
Whether the appellant is responsible for the loss of the pair of earrings and two coats. Whether the appellant is entitled to a mitigating circumstance for voluntary confession of former conviction in the determination of habitual delinquency.
Ruling
The Court modified the decision of the lower court. The appellant was sentenced to a principal penalty of three years, six months, and eleven days of prision correccional, and an additional penalty of seven years, four months, and one day of prision mayor. The decision of the lower court was affirmed with these modifications.
Ratio Decidendi
On the first issue regarding the missing items: The Court held that the evidence was insufficient to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the appellant took the pair of earrings and the two coats. While all stolen articles were found in the appellant's possession except for these items, and the appellant was captured shortly after the robbery, the specific items were not found on his person, nor was it shown that he had dropped or thrown them away. Therefore, the decision of the lower court was modified with respect to these items. On the second issue regarding habitual delinquency and voluntary confession: The Court ruled that the appellant was not entitled to the benefit of the seventh mitigating circumstance (voluntary confession) as defined in Article 13 of the Revised Penal Code. The appellant did not plead guilty or confess his guilt prior to the presentation of the prosecution's evidence; he admitted his former convictions only after the fiscal had presented his evidence regarding the crime in question. Furthermore, the Court cited People vs. Tanyaquin (57 Phil., 426) for the principle that in imposing the penalty for habitual delinquency, the trial judge is not bound by the usual rules respecting mitigating and aggravating circumstances. The defendant's status as a recidivist, due to prior convictions, was considered in fixing the principal penalty and for proving habitual delinquency. The appellant was also correctly denied the benefit of the Indeterminate Sentence Law because he was a habitual delinquent.
Main Doctrine
The habitual delinquent is not entitled to the benefit of the Indeterminate Sentence Law. The penalty for habitual delinquency is fixed and not subject to the usual rules regarding mitigating and aggravating circumstances.