People v. Javier
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: The accused, Pedro Javier y Rivero, was charged with theft for taking part of a harness valued at P10, belonging to Teodoro Gatmaitan, with intent of gain and without the owner's consent. The information also alleged that the accused was a habitual delinquent, having been convicted five times previously for theft and estafa. Procedural History: The Court of First Instance of Manila found the accused guilty by confession of the crime of theft. He was sentenced to one month and one day of arresto mayor and, as a habitual delinquent, to an additional penalty of ten years and one day of prision mayor, with costs. The Petition: The accused appealed the judgment, raising the issue that the record of arraignment did not affirmatively show he was informed of his right to counsel, provided with counsel, and furnished a copy of the information, as required by General Orders, No. 58.
Issue(s)
Whether the record of arraignment sufficiently shows that the accused was informed of his right to counsel, provided with counsel, and furnished a copy of the information. Whether the penalty imposed by the trial court is in accordance with law, considering the aggravating circumstance of recidivism and the plea of guilty.
Ruling
The Supreme Court affirmed the appealed judgment in all other respects, with the sole modification that the principal penalty imposed upon the accused-appellant be four months and one day of arresto mayor. The additional penalty for habitual delinquency was affirmed.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of arraignment and right to counsel: The Court held that the failure to affirmatively state in the record that an accused has been informed of their rights does not warrant reversal if it does not affirmatively appear that they were not informed. This is based on the presumption that official duty has been regularly performed. The record showed that an attorney de oficio was assigned to the accused, and the arraignment entry stated that the accused was informed of the nature and cause of the accusation, the complaint was read to him, and a copy was delivered. Therefore, there was no affirmative showing that the accused was deprived of his rights. However, the Court reiterated its admonition in previous cases that all necessary details required by law be made to appear in the record of arraignment to avoid such issues. On the issue of penalty: The Court found that the penalty of one month and one day of arresto mayor was not in accordance with law because the aggravating circumstance of recidivism was not taken into consideration. The plea of guilty entered on appeal does not constitute a mitigating circumstance under Article 13, No. 7 of the Revised Penal Code, as it was not made before the presentation of evidence in the court of original jurisdiction. Considering the aggravating circumstance of recidivism, evidenced by the accused's prior convictions for theft and estafa, and the absence of any mitigating circumstances, the penalty for theft should be imposed in its maximum period, which is from four months and one day to six months of arresto mayor. The additional penalty of ten years and one day of prision mayor for habitual delinquency was deemed correct, as the accused had five prior convictions, falling within the range for habitual delinquency under Article 62, subsection 5, paragraph (c) of the Revised Penal Code.
Main Doctrine
Failure to affirmatively show in the record that an accused was informed of their right to counsel does not warrant reversal if it does not affirmatively appear that they were not informed, based on the presumption of regularity of official duty. However, courts are admonished to ensure all necessary details required by law are made to appear in the record of arraignment.