G.R. No. 37124 ; October 28, 1932
THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS, plaintiff-appellee, vs. ARCADIO TANYAQUIN Y RICO (alias ARCADIO RICO), ET AL., defendants. ARCADIO TANYAQUIN Y RICO (alias ARCADIO RICO), appellant.

FACTS

The appellant, Arcadio Tanyaquin y Rico, was convicted by the Court of First Instance of Manila for the crime of theft and sentenced to four months and one day of arresto mayor. As an habitual delinquent, he was also sentenced to an additional penalty of ten years and one day of prision mayor. He appealed, contending that the trial court erred by not properly considering his plea of guilty as a mitigating circumstance for both the principal penalty and the additional penalty for habitual delinquency.

ISSUE

1. Whether the trial court correctly imposed the principal penalty for theft.
2. Whether modifying circumstances (mitigating/aggravating) present in the last crime prosecuted should be considered in fixing the additional penalty for habitual delinquency under Article 62, paragraph 5 of the Revised Penal Code.

RULING

1. On the principal penalty: The Supreme Court affirmed the trial court’s imposition of four months and one day of arresto mayor. The penalty for theft of property valued between P50 and P200 is arresto mayor in its medium degree to prision correccional in its minimum degree. The mitigating circumstance of a plea of guilty was offset by the aggravating circumstance of recidivism. Applying Article 64 of the Revised Penal Code, the penalty was properly imposed in the medium degree, within which the imposed penalty falls.

2. On the additional penalty for habitual delinquency: The Supreme Court modified the additional penalty. It held that modifying circumstances present in the commission of the last crime should not be taken into account in fixing the additional penalty for habitual delinquency. These circumstances relate to the determination of the principal penalty for the specific offense and have no bearing on the accused’s habitual criminality. Considering them for the additional penalty would, in effect, use them twice. The additional penalty is imposed based on the accused’s status as an habitual delinquent, and its degree is left to the sound discretion of the court.

Applying this, the Court recalculated the appellant’s prior convictions. Only two prior convictions (consolidated from several offenses based on their dates) were properly counted against him, making the present offense his third within the ten-year period. The applicable additional penalty under Article 62(5)(a) is prision correccional in its medium and maximum degrees. In the exercise of its discretion, the Court reduced the additional penalty to four years, nine months, and ten days of prision correccional.

Separate Opinion: Chief Justice Avanceña dissented, arguing that modifying circumstances should be considered in imposing the additional penalty, as the law provides for degrees within these penalties, indicating an intent for their application in the same manner as the principal penalty.

AI Generated by Armztrong.