People v. Eden
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: The defendant, Fausto Eden y Cabalona, committed robbery of P204.60 in an inhabited house without the use of arms. Procedural History: The Court of First Instance of Manila found the defendant guilty and imposed a penalty of two years, four months, and one day of prision correccional, indemnity, costs, and an additional penalty for habitual delinquency. The Appeal: The defendant appealed the judgment of the Court of First Instance. The attorney appointed to defend the appellant de oficio reported that the judgment was in accordance with law and recommended its affirmance.
Issue(s)
Whether the penalty imposed by the lower court for robbery, considering the circumstances and the appellant's confession and recidivism, is in accordance with law. Whether the additional penalty for habitual delinquency is correctly imposed.
Ruling
The principal penalty imposed by the lower court was modified. The judgment was affirmed in all other respects, without pronouncement as to costs.
Ratio Decidendi
On Issue 1: The facts alleged in the information constitute the crime of robbery of P204.60 in an inhabited house, perpetrated without the use of arms. The appellant confessed to the crime upon arraignment, which would normally entitle him to the mitigating circumstance of voluntary confession. However, the information explicitly alleged that he was a recidivist for the third time. According to Article 64, rule 4 of the Revised Penal Code, when the mitigating circumstance of voluntary confession is present with the aggravating circumstance of recidivism, the latter nullifies and compensates for the former. Therefore, the mitigating circumstance of voluntary confession cannot be disregarded and is compensated by the aggravating circumstance of recidivism. The principal penalty should be modified to two years, eleven months, and eleven days of prision correccional, as the medium period of prision correccional (two years, four months, and one day to four years and two months) is the base penalty for this type of robbery, and the mitigating circumstance is compensated by the aggravating circumstance. On Issue 2: The appellant was found to be a habitual delinquent for the third time, in accordance with Article 62, rule 5, paragraph (b), of the Revised Penal Code. This classification warrants the imposition of an additional penalty for habitual delinquency, which was correctly imposed by the lower court. The judgment of the lower court in all other respects, including the imposition of the additional penalty for habitual delinquency, was affirmed.
Main Doctrine
When a defendant confesses his guilt voluntarily, this mitigating circumstance is generally appreciated. However, if the information explicitly alleges recidivism for the third time, this aggravating circumstance nullifies and compensates for the mitigating circumstance of voluntary confession, as the confession necessarily admits to the prior convictions. The penalty for robbery is determined based on the specific circumstances, and habitual delinquency imposes an additional penalty for repeat offenders.