People v. Pena
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: The accused, Carlos de la Peña y Lacsamana, was prosecuted and convicted of theft for taking ten pairs of socks valued at P4.50 without the owner's consent and with intent to gain. The offense occurred on July 12, 1938. Procedural History: The accused was convicted in the municipal court of the City of Manila and subsequently in the Court of First Instance of said city. He was sentenced to four months and one day of arresto mayor as the principal penalty and ten years and one day as an additional penalty for being a habitual delinquent. The Petition: The accused appealed the judgment, arguing that the principal penalty of four months and one day of arresto mayor was excessive and exceeded the prescribed legal limit. He also contended that the additional penalty of ten years and one day for habitual delinquency was cruel and unusual, considering the low value of the stolen items.
Issue(s)
Whether the penalty of four months and one day of arresto mayor is excessive. Whether the additional penalty of ten years and one day for habitual delinquency is cruel and unusual.
Ruling
The appealed judgment is modified by reducing the principal penalty to four months of arresto mayor. In all other respects, the judgment is affirmed.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of the principal penalty: The appellant contended that his voluntary plea of guilty in the Court of First Instance should have entitled him to the minimum period of arresto mayor. However, the records showed that he did not admit guilt in the municipal court, necessitating the presentation of evidence by the prosecution. The Court reiterated the rule that a voluntary confession of guilt, to be considered a mitigating circumstance, must be made in open court at the first opportunity before the competent court trying the case. Confessions made under circumstances where the prosecution has already presented evidence do not qualify as a mitigating circumstance, citing previous cases. The penalty prescribed for theft of goods valued at P4.50 is arresto mayor in its minimum and medium periods (one month and one day to four months). Given that the information alleged the appellant to be a recidivist for the fifth time within ten years, he incurred the maximum of this penalty. The Court noted that the lower court imposed one day more than the maximum penalty that should have been imposed, which was four months, and thus corrected this error. On the issue of the additional penalty for habitual delinquency: The appellant argued that the additional penalty of ten years and one day of prision mayor for habitual delinquency was cruel and unusual. The Court stated that this issue had been decided previously, holding that the additional penalties imposed for habitual delinquency under Article 62 of the Revised Penal Code are neither cruel nor unusual. The Court cited People vs. Madrano and People vs. Montera as precedents, finding no necessity to re-examine the matter. Therefore, the additional penalty was deemed valid and not violative of constitutional prohibitions against cruel and unusual punishment.
Main Doctrine
A voluntary plea of guilt, to be considered a mitigating circumstance, must be made at the first opportunity before the competent court trying the case. Confessions made after the prosecution has presented its evidence do not qualify.