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 previously 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 to four months and one day of *arresto mayor* as the principal penalty. Additionally, applying Act No. 3397 , the court imposed an extra penalty of ten years imprisonment as an habitual delinquent. Ortezuela appealed, contesting the propriety of the penalties imposed.

ISSUE

1. Whether the trial court correctly determined the principal penalty for the crime of qualified theft.
2. Whether Act No. 3397 grants the court discretion to impose or entirely waive the additional penalty for habitual delinquency, or merely discretion to determine its duration.

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 Revised Penal Code, as amended, is *arresto mayor* in its medium degree to *presidio correccional* in its minimum degree. However, since the appellant had been convicted of theft more than twice before, the crime is qualified theft under Article 520(3) of the Penal Code. With no mitigating or aggravating circumstances, the proper penalty is *presidio correccional* in its maximum degree (4 years, 2 months, and 1 day to 6 years). 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 Habitual Delinquency Penalty: The Supreme Court agreed with the trial court’s interpretation of Act No. 3397 . Paragraph (b) of the Act states that upon a fourth conviction, the offender “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 Court held that the phrase “in the discretion of the court” refers only to the duration of the additional penalty (within the 10-15 year range), not to the discretion of whether to impose it at all. The imposition of an additional penalty is mandatory for a fourth-time offender.
* The Court reasoned that: (a) Interpreting the law as giving discretion to waive the penalty would render the phrase “not less than ten… years” nonsensical; (b) The legislative history and title of the Act (“An Act to Establish Additional Penalties for Habitual Delinquents”) show an intent to make penalties for repeat offenders more severe, not to ameliorate them by giving courts an option; and (c) The Spanish text of the law, being the original version considered by the legislature, supports this interpretation more clearly than the English translation.
* Therefore, the trial court correctly imposed the additional penalty. In imposing the minimum term of ten years, it properly exercised its discretion regarding the penalty’s duration.

DISPOSITIVE PORTION:
The judgment of the trial court was AFFIRMED with MODIFICATION. The principal penalty is increased to four years, two months, and one day of *presidio correccional*. The additional penalty of ten years imprisonment for habitual delinquency and the order to pay costs stand.