People v. Flores
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: The accused, Dominador Flores y Aguilar, pleaded guilty to the crime of frustrated theft. Procedural History: The Court of First Instance of Manila found the accused guilty of frustrated theft and sentenced him to eleven days of arresto menor as the principal penalty and an additional penalty of two years, four months, and one day of prision correccional for being a habitual delinquent, with accessory penalties and costs. The Petition: The accused appealed the judgment, specifically contesting the principal penalty imposed. He did not assign as error the declaration of habitual delinquency.
Issue(s)
Whether the principal penalty of eleven days of arresto menor for frustrated theft is in accordance with law. Whether the accused was correctly declared a habitual delinquent and imposed the corresponding additional penalty.
Ruling
The appealed sentence is reversed insofar as it declares the accused a habitual delinquent and imposes the corresponding additional penalty upon him, and it is affirmed in all other respects, with the costs of both instances to the appellant.
Ratio Decidendi
On Whether the principal penalty of eleven days of arresto menor for frustrated theft is in accordance with law: The Court affirmed the principal penalty. Article 309, case 5, of the Revised Penal Code prescribes arresto mayor to its full extent for consummated theft where the value of the thing stolen is over P5 but does not exceed P50. For frustrated theft, Article 50, in connection with Articles 61 and 70 of the Revised Penal Code, mandates the imposition of the penalty next lower in degree, which is arresto menor. The presence of the aggravating circumstance of recidivism (Article 14, subsec. 9) was compensated by the mitigating circumstance of a plea of guilty (Article 13, subsec. 7). Consequently, pursuant to rules 1 and 4 of Article 64, the penalty should be imposed in its medium period, ranging from eleven to twenty days of arresto menor. The trial court's imposition of eleven days of arresto menor was therefore in accordance with law. On Whether the accused was correctly declared a habitual delinquent and imposed the corresponding additional penalty: The Court reversed the declaration of habitual delinquency and the imposition of the additional penalty. The accused pleaded guilty to the crime of frustrated theft, admitting only the facts alleged in the information. These facts, as presented, were insufficient to establish habitual delinquency because the information did not specify the dates of the former convictions or the dates of the commission of the crimes for which he was previously convicted. The Court cited several previous rulings, including People vs. Santiago and People vs. De la Cruz, to support the principle that the additional penalty for habitual delinquency cannot be imposed without proper and specific allegations and proof of the elements constituting habitual delinquency.
Main Doctrine
The penalty for frustrated theft is the penalty next lower in degree to that for consummated theft. The aggravating circumstance of recidivism, when compensated by the mitigating circumstance of a plea of guilty, calls for the imposition of the penalty in its medium period. However, a declaration of habitual delinquency requires specific allegations in the information regarding prior convictions and the commission dates of the crimes, which, if absent, renders the imposition of the additional penalty for habitual delinquency erroneous.