People v. Concepcion
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: On January 21, 1939, Casimiro Concepcion was charged with estafa in the Court of First Instance of Manila. Upon arraignment, he pleaded guilty to the information. Procedural History: On April 25, 1939, the trial court sentenced Concepcion to imprisonment of four months and one day of arresto mayor. Due to his status as a habitual delinquent, an additional penalty of twelve years of prision mayor was imposed. He was also ordered to indemnify the offended parties in the sum of P225 and to pay the costs. The Petition: The accused appealed the judgment to the Supreme Court, primarily questioning the qualification of the crime and the propriety of the penalty imposed.
Issue(s)
Whether the penalty imposed for estafa, considering the amount involved and the plea of guilty, is proper. Whether the additional penalty for habitual delinquency was correctly imposed, considering the number of prior convictions.
Ruling
The judgment of the lower court was modified. The appellant was imposed the principal penalty of one year and one day of prision correctional, and as a habitual delinquent, the additional penalty of ten years of prision mayor. The decision was confirmed in all other respects, with the rule prescribed in Article 70 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended by Commonwealth Act No. 217, to be observed regarding the maximum duration of the sentence.
Ratio Decidendi
On the propriety of the penalty for estafa: The amount involved was P225, which falls under the 3rd paragraph of Article 315 of the Revised Penal Code, prescribing the penalty of arresto mayor in its maximum period to prision correctional in its minimum period. The trial court imposed a penalty within the minimum period of this range. However, the Supreme Court ruled that the plea of guilty, while mitigating, is offset by the aggravating circumstance of recidivism. Therefore, the penalty should be raised to the medium period of the prescribed range, which is one year and one day of prision correctional. This modification aligns with established jurisprudence where recidivism negates the mitigating effect of a plea of guilty in penalty determination. On the additional penalty for habitual delinquency: The accused was found to be a habitual delinquent. For the application of the additional penalty, only three prior convictions (December 12, 1922, August 17, 1928, and September 6, 1933) were considered. The Court held that twelve other convictions should not be taken into account because the commissions of the crimes prior to these were deemed prescribed. As this conviction was the fourth, the accused should be sentenced to the additional penalty within the minimum and medium periods of prision mayor, as provided by Article 62, paragraph 5(b) of the Revised Penal Code, which ranges from six years and one day to ten years. The Court imposed the maximum of this range, ten years of prision mayor, as the additional penalty.
Main Doctrine
A plea of guilty, while mitigating, does not offset the aggravating circumstance of recidivism when determining the penalty for estafa, and the additional penalty for habitual delinquency is applied based on prior convictions, excluding those that have prescribed.