G.R. No. 29316 , August 14, 1928
THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS, plaintiff-appellee, vs. IGNACIO ORTEZUELA, defendant-appellant.

FACTS

Ignacio Ortezuela was charged with robbery for breaking into a locked suitcase on January 29, 1928, and stealing items valued at P81.40. The information also alleged that he was an habitual delinquent under Act No. 3397 , having been convicted three times for theft in December 1926. Upon arraignment, Ortezuela pleaded guilty to the lesser offense of theft, which the prosecution accepted. The trial court convicted him of theft and, considering his prior convictions, sentenced him under Article 518 of the Penal Code to four months and one day of *arresto mayor* as the principal penalty. Additionally, applying Act No. 3397 , the court imposed an extra ten-year imprisonment as an habitual delinquent. Ortezuela appealed, challenging only the propriety of the penalties imposed.

ISSUE

1. Whether the trial court correctly imposed the principal penalty for the crime of theft.
2. Whether Act No. 3397 mandates the imposition of an additional penalty for habitual delinquency or merely grants the court discretion to impose such a penalty.

RULING

1. On the Principal Penalty: The Supreme Court found the trial court erred. The property stolen was valued at P81.40 (407 pesetas). For simple theft of this amount, the penalty under Article 518 of the Penal Code, as amended, ranges from *arresto mayor* in its medium degree to *presidio correccional* in its minimum degree. However, since Ortezuela had been convicted of theft more than twice before, the crime was qualified theft under Article 520(3) of the Penal Code. With no mitigating or aggravating circumstances, the proper penalty was *presidio correccional* in its maximum degree (4 years, 2 months, and 1 day to 6 years). Thus, the Court modified the principal penalty to the minimum of this range: four years, two months, and one day of *presidio correccional*.

2. On the Additional Penalty for Habitual Delinquency: The Supreme Court upheld the imposition of the additional penalty. It interpreted paragraph (b) of Act No. 3397 , which applies to a fourth conviction, as follows:
* The English version states: “Upon a fourth conviction… he shall be sentenced to the penalty provided for the last crime committed and, in the discretion of the court, to an additional penalty of not less than ten nor more than fifteen years of imprisonment.”
* The Spanish version (the original language of the legislation) states: “Al ser condenada por la cuarta vez… se le impondra la pena correspondiente al ultimo delito y ademas se le impondra, a discrecion del tribunal, una pena adicional que no sera menor de diez ni mayor de quince años de prision.”
* The Court held that the Spanish text controls. The phrase “a discrecion del tribunal” (in the discretion of the court) refers to the duration of the additional penalty within the 10 to 15-year range, not to the discretion of whether to impose it at all. The Court reasoned that:
a. Interpreting it as complete discretion to not impose any penalty would render the prescribed minimum meaningless.
b. The legislative history and title of the Act (“An Act to Establish Additional Penalties for Habitual Criminals”) indicate an intent to mandate additional penalties, making the path for habitual offenders harder, not easier.
Therefore, the additional penalty was mandatory. The trial court properly imposed the minimum of ten years.

DISPOSITIVE PORTION:
The judgment of the trial court was AFFIRMED with MODIFICATION. The principal penalty was increased to four years, two months, and one day of *presidio correccional*. The additional penalty of ten years imprisonment for habitual delinquency was sustained. Costs were imposed on the appellant.