People v. Concepcion
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: The accused, Casimiro Concepcion, was charged with estafa in the sum of P400. He voluntarily pleaded guilty upon arraignment. Procedural History: The Court of First Instance of Manila found the accused guilty of estafa, sentencing him to six months and one day of prision correccional, to indemnify the offended party, with subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency, and to pay costs. The court also declared him a habitual delinquent, imposing an additional penalty of six years and one day of prision mayor pursuant to Article 62(5)(b) of the Revised Penal Code. The Petition: The accused appealed the judgment. His counsel de oficio recommended affirmation, while the Solicitor-General recommended modification of the principal penalty regarding its period. The accused also appealed the imposition of subsidiary imprisonment.
Issue(s)
Whether the principal penalty for estafa was imposed in the correct period. Whether the subsidiary imprisonment was correctly imposed.
Ruling
The appealed judgment is affirmed with the modification that the accused is sentenced to one year and one day of prision correccional with the corresponding accessory penalties, and the suppression of the subsidiary imprisonment. Costs are taxed against the accused-appellant.
Ratio Decidendi
On the principal penalty for estafa: The penalty for estafa under Article 315, paragraph 3, of the Revised Penal Code, by reason of the amount, is arresto mayor in its maximum period to prision correccional in its minimum period. Considering the mitigating circumstance of a plea of guilty and the aggravating circumstance of recidivism (inferred from habitual delinquency), the penalty should be imposed in its medium period. The medium period of arresto mayor in its maximum (4 months) to prision correccional in its minimum (6 months) is from 4 months and 1 day to 6 months. However, the Solicitor-General's recommendation for modification of the principal penalty on the ground that it has not been imposed in the corresponding period is noted. The court modifies the penalty to one year and one day of prision correccional, which appears to be a re-evaluation of the appropriate penalty considering all circumstances and legal provisions, particularly Article 70. On the subsidiary imprisonment: The subsidiary imprisonment imposed was incorrect. Article 70 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended by Commonwealth Act No. 217, provides that the maximum duration of a convict's sentence shall not be more than threefold the length of time corresponding to the most severe of the penalties imposed, and shall in no case exceed forty years. In this case, the principal penalty, the additional penalty for habitual delinquency, and the potential subsidiary imprisonment, when aggregated, would exceed the limits prescribed by Article 70. Therefore, subsidiary imprisonment should be suppressed to comply with the maximum duration of sentence rule.
Main Doctrine
The subsidiary imprisonment in cases of estafa is not correct when the total penalty imposed, including the principal and additional penalties for habitual delinquency, exceeds that of prision correccional, as per Article 70 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended by Commonwealth Act No. 217.