People v. Bawasanta
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: The appellant, Elpidio Bawasanta y Deserto, was charged with theft in the municipal court of Manila. The information alleged that on or about November 26, 1936, he unlawfully took a pocketbook valued at P5 containing P8 cash and other personal papers, belonging to Andres Zavalla, to the prejudice of the owner in the sum of P13. The information also stated that the accused was a habitual delinquent, citing previous convictions for theft and threat. Procedural History: In the municipal court, the appellant pleaded not guilty and was sentenced to one month and one day of imprisonment, with an additional penalty of four years, two months, and one day, and to indemnify the offended party. The appellant appealed to the Court of First Instance of Manila. In the Court of First Instance, he voluntarily pleaded guilty and was sentenced to one month and one day of arresto mayor, with the additional penalty of four years, two months, and one day of prision correccional as a habitual delinquent, to indemnify the offended party, and to pay costs. The defendant appealed this judgment. The Petition: The appellant questioned the imposition of the additional penalty, contending that his two previous convictions should be considered as only one for the purpose of habitual delinquency. He also argued that the mitigating circumstance of a plea of guilty should be considered.
Issue(s)
Whether the two previous convictions of the accused should be considered as only one for the purpose of determining habitual delinquency. Whether the plea of guilty entered in the Court of First Instance on appeal, after a plea of not guilty in the municipal court and after the prosecution had presented its evidence, constitutes a mitigating circumstance. Whether the penalty imposed should be in the maximum period considering the aggravating circumstance of recidivism and the absence of any mitigating circumstance.
Ruling
The appealed judgment is modified. The defendant and appellant is found guilty of theft, with the aggravating circumstance of recidivism, and is sentenced to four months and one day of arresto mayor, with the accessories of the law, to indemnify the offended party in the sum of P13, with subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency, and to pay the costs of both instances.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of habitual delinquency: The Court held that the appellant's contention that his two previous convictions should be considered as only one for the purpose of habitual delinquency, based on the elapsed time between offenses and the timing of convictions relative to the commission of offenses, was not supported by the cited doctrines. The Court found that the appellant was indeed a habitual delinquent as defined by law, necessitating the imposition of the additional penalty. On the mitigating circumstance of plea of guilty: The Court ruled that the plea of guilty entered by the defendant in the Court of First Instance on appeal did not qualify as a mitigating circumstance under Article 13, No. 7 of the Revised Penal Code. This article requires the plea to be made in court before the presentation of the prosecution's evidence. Since the appellant had pleaded not guilty in the municipal court and the prosecution had already presented its evidence before the plea of guilty was entered on appeal, the mitigating circumstance was not present. The Court clarified that a trial de novo in the Court of First Instance does not erase the proceedings in the lower court for the purpose of determining the existence of this mitigating circumstance. On the imposition of penalty: The offense committed was penalized by Article 309, No. 5 of the Revised Penal Code with arresto mayor. In the absence of any mitigating circumstance to offset the aggravating circumstance of recidivism, the penalty should be imposed in its maximum period. Therefore, the penalty of four months and one day of arresto mayor was deemed appropriate.
Main Doctrine
A plea of guilty entered for the first time on appeal to the Court of First Instance, after a plea of not guilty was entered in the municipal court and after the prosecution had presented its evidence, does not qualify as a mitigating circumstance under Article 13, No. 7 of the Revised Penal Code, as the plea must be made before the presentation of evidence for the prosecution.