People v. Jose
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: The accused, Marcelino Jose y Payumo, was charged with theft of a bicycle valued at P90. The information alleged that he was a habitual delinquent, having been convicted twice previously of the same offense. Procedural History: In the municipal court, the accused was found guilty and sentenced to four months and one day of arresto mayor plus an additional penalty of two years, four months, and one day of prision correccional for being a habitual delinquent. He appealed to the Court of First Instance. Upon arraignment in the Court of First Instance, he initially pleaded not guilty. However, when the case was called for trial, he withdrew his plea and substituted it with a plea of guilty. The Court of First Instance then sentenced him to the same penalty, ordered him to indemnify the offended party in the sum of P90 with subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency, and to pay the costs. The accused appealed again. The Petition: The defense did not deny the guilt of the accused but argued that the principal penalty should be applied in its minimum period because the accused voluntarily pleaded guilty. The prosecution argued that the aggravating circumstance of recidivism should be considered, and since no mitigating circumstance was present, the penalty should be imposed in its maximum period.
Issue(s)
Whether the voluntary plea of guilty in the Court of First Instance, after an initial plea of not guilty in the municipal court, constitutes a mitigating circumstance. Whether the penalty imposed, considering the aggravating circumstance of recidivism and the absence of mitigating circumstances, is in accordance with law.
Ruling
The Supreme Court affirmed the appealed judgment, with a modification regarding the specific duration of the penalty. The Court held that the penalty to be served by the accused is six months and one day of prision correccional, plus the accessory penalties prescribed by the Revised Penal Code.
Ratio Decidendi
On whether the voluntary plea of guilty constitutes a mitigating circumstance: The Court ruled that the voluntary plea of guilty invoked by the defense cannot be taken into consideration as a mitigating circumstance. This is because the accused did not plead guilty in the municipal court where the case was originally tried. The rule requiring a voluntary plea of guilty to be considered a mitigating circumstance pertains to the initial plea entered before the court of competent jurisdiction where the case is first heard. The subsequent withdrawal of a 'not guilty' plea and substitution with a 'guilty' plea in a higher court, after an initial plea of 'not guilty' in the lower court, does not satisfy the requirement for this mitigating circumstance. The Court cited previous rulings in People vs. Hermino and People vs. Bawasanta to support this conclusion. On the penalty imposed considering recidivism: The Court held that in the commission of the offense, the aggravating circumstance of recidivism, which was alleged in the information and admitted by the accused, must be taken into account. Since no mitigating circumstance was present, the penalty prescribed in Article 309, No. 4, of the Revised Penal Code, which is arresto mayor in its medium period to prision correccional in its minimum period, should be imposed in its maximum period. With respect to the additional penalty for habitual delinquency, the Court found that the penalty imposed was in accordance with Article 62, No. 5 (a), of the Revised Penal Code, as this was the accused's third conviction. The Court clarified that the principal penalty should be six months and one day of prision correccional, which is the maximum period of the prescribed penalty for theft of property valued at P90, considering the aggravating circumstance of recidivism and the absence of mitigating circumstances. The additional penalty for habitual delinquency was also affirmed.
Main Doctrine
A voluntary plea of guilty in the Court of First Instance, after a plea of not guilty was entered in the municipal court, does not qualify as a mitigating circumstance for the purpose of applying the penalty in its minimum period, especially when the aggravating circumstance of recidivism is present.