Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence

1. CRIMINAL LAW AND PROCEDURE; "ESTAFA INVOLVING AN AMOUNT WHICH DOES NOT EXCEED P200 PRESENCE OF THE AGGRAVATING CIRCUMSTANCE OF RECIDIVISM AND THE MITIGATING CIRCUMSTANCE OF VOLUNTARY CONFESSION OF GUILT. — According to the provisions of article 315, subsection 4, of the Revised Penal Code, the penalty that should be imposed upon a person found guilty of the crime of estafa, where the amount of the fraud does not exceed P200, is arresto mayor in its medium and maximum periods, that is, from two months and one day to six months, the medium period of said penalty being from three months and eleven days to four months and twenty days. In the case of the appellants, there having been present one aggravating circumstance, which is that of recidivism, and one mitigating circumstance, which is that of voluntary confession of guilt, both of which circumstances should be set off against each other (art. 63, subsec. 4), the principal penalty which should have been imposed upon said appellants is at least three months and eleven days of arresto mayor, and not three months only, as the lower court had imposed upon them.

2. ID.; ID.; HABITUAL DELINQUENCY. — By reading the information quoted in the decision, it may clearly be seen that the four previous convictions of estafa of the appellant E. de J. can be considered as only three, for the purposes of the law penalizing habitual delinquency, for the reasons stated in the cases of People v. Santiago (55 Phil., 266); People v. Ventura (56 Phil., 1); and People v. Kaw Liong (57 Phil., 839); and it may likewise be seen that the five previous convictions of estafa and theft of the appellant F. de la R. can, in turn, be considered as only three convictions, for the same reasons. Consequently, after considering the question from this viewpoint, the additional penalty that may be imposed upon each of the accused, by virtue of the aforesaid provisions of article 62, subsection 6, paragraph (b), of the Revised Penal Code, is prision mayor in its minimum and medium periods, that is from six years and one day to ten years.

The question raised before us by the appeal taken by the accused from the judgment of the lower court, sentencing them for estafa to suffer the principal penalty of three months of arresto mayor and an additional penalty of ten years and one day of prision mayor by reason of habitual delinquency, besides indemnifying Toribia Bacos in the sum of P3.80, is whether or not said two penalties are in accordance with law.

The information charging the appellants with the crime in question, of which it may be truthfully stated that they pleaded guilty upon arraignment, reads as follows:ClubJuris

"That on or about December 15, 1938, in the municipality of Pasay, Province of Rizal, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the accused abovenamed, conspiring together and helping each other, by means of false and fraudulent manifestations which they made to Toribia Bacos to the effect that a solitaire ring which was in their possession was genuine and valued at P900 and knowing fully well that such manifestation was false and fraudulent, because said ring was fake with copper setting and false diamond, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously induce said Toribia Bacos to exchange and deliver and in fact she exchanged and delivered a pair of earings, worth P8, a ring worth P4, and an engagement ring worth P1, a gold necklace worth P30 and cash of P0.80 for the said fake solitaire ring, and once in possession of said jewelries and money belonging to Toribia Bacos, the accused above-named, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously, appropriate and convert said jewelries and money to their own use and benefit, to the damage and prejudice of the said owner in the amount of P43.80.

"That the accused Emilio de Jesus and Francisco de la Rosa are habitual delinquent, having committed the present crime within the period of 10 years from their last release from prison on December 28, 1938. and October 30, 1938, respectively, and having been convicted of estafa and theft by virtue of several final judgments handed down by competent courts within the same period of 10 years, as follows:ClubJuris

"EMILIO DE JESUS Y BAUTISTA

Date of

commis- Date of Crimes Sentence Dates of

sion sentence release

5-4-36 May 22, 1936 Estafa, M. C. D. 3 months and 11 days . . . . (Appealed)

H-52433

Appealed and sentenced as follows:clubjuris

June 1, 1936 Estafa, Ct 1st 2 months and 1 day P58 Aug. 12, 1936

Ins. D-52390 indemnity

9-8-36 Sept. 16, 1936 Estafa, M. C. D. 2 months and 1 day and 6

H-61331 years and 1 day addi-

tional imprisonment,

and P28 indemnity

Sept. 17, 1936 Estafa, M. C. D. 2 months and 1 day and 6 (Appealed)

H-61332 years and 1 day addi-

tional imprisonment

Cases Nos. H-61331 and H-61332, appealed

and sentenced as follows:clubjuris

Oct. 29, 1936 Estafa, Ct. 1st Inst 4 months and 1 day, mas. (Appealed)

Inst. D-53188. 8 años y 1 dia como pene

adicional

Nov. 24, 1936 Estafa, Ct. 1st 3 months and 11 days

Inst. D-52160.

Case No. D-53188, appealed and sentenced

as follows

Mar. 4, 1937 Estafa, Ct. 1st 4 months and 1 day.

Inst. D-53188

6-238 June 3, 1938 Estafa M. C. D. 6 months.

H-95213

Case No. H-95054, appealed and sentenced

as follows:

"FRANCISCO DE LA ROSA Y GOMEZ

Dec. 8, 1931 Estafa, M. C.D. 2 months and 1 day, Feb. 18, 1932

F-48246 and P23.60 indemnity

Aug. 16, 1933 Theft, M. C. D. 4 months and 1 day, (Appealed

F-94776 and P20 indemnity

Oct. 19, 1933 Attempted P200 fine

estafa, M. C. D.

F-91955

Case No. F-94776, appealed and sentenced

as follows.

Nov. 15 1933 Hurto, Ct. 1st 6 months and

Inst D-46442 P20 indemnity

May 22, 1936 Estafa, M. C. D. 3 months and (Appealed)

H-52433 and 2 years, 4 months and

11 days 1 day additional imprison-

ment for being a habit-

ual delinquent for the

third conviction.

May 25, 1936 Estafa, M. C. D. 3 months and 11 days

H-50768, and P27 indemnity

Case No. 52433, appealed and sentenced

as follows:clubjuris

June 1, 1936 Estafa, Ct. 1st 2 months and 1 day, October 30, 1938

Inst. D-52390 plus additional penalty

of 2 years, 4 months and

1 day and P58 indemnity

"Contrary to Law." clubjuris

According to the provisions of article 315, subsection of the Revised Penal Code, the penalty that should be imposed upon a person found guilty of a crime of estafa, where the amount of the fraud does not exceed P200, is arresto mayor its medium and maximum periods, that is, from two months and one day to six months, the medium period of said penalty being from three months and eleven days to four months and 20 days.

In the case of the appellants, there having been present one aggravating circumstance, which is that of recidivism, and one mitigating circumstance, which is that of voluntary confession of guilt, both of which circumstances should be set off against each other (art. 63, subsec. 4), the principal penalty which should have been imposed upon them is at least three months and eleven days of arresto mayor, and not three months only as the lower court had imposed upon them.

By reading the information quoted herein, it may clearly be seen that the four previous convictions of estafa of the appellant Emilio de Jesus can be considered as only three, for the purposes of the law penalizing habitual delinquency, for the reasons stated in the cases of People v. Santiago (55 Phil., 266); People v. Ventura (56 Phil., 1); and People v. Kaw Liong (57 .Phil., 839); and it may likewise be seen that the five previous convictions of estafa and theft the appellant Francisco de la Rosa can, in turn, be considered as only three convictions, for the same reasons. Consequently after considering the question from this viewpoint the additional penalty that may be imposed upon each of the accused, by virtue of the aforesaid provisions of article 62, subsection 5, paragraph (b), of the Revised Penal Code, is prision mayor in its minimum and medium periods, that is, from six years and one day to ten years.

Following the recommendation of the Solicitor-General, which is very well founded, the judgment appealed from is hereby modified so as to impose upon each of the accused-appellants the principal penalty of three months and eleven days of arresto mayor and the additional penalty of six years and one day of prision mayor. Modified as above, said judgment is affirmed in all other respects, without special pronouncement as to costs. So ordered.

Avanceña, C.J., Villa-Real, Imperial, Laurel, Concepcion, and Moran, JJ., concur.