G.R. No. 46652 - People of the Philippines vs. Casimiro Concepcion

Republic of the Philippines
SUPREME COURT
Manila

EN BANC

G.R. No. 46652           September 23, 1939

THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES,plaintiff-appellee,
vs.
CASIMIRO CONCEPCION,defendant-appellant.

E.G. Cammayo for appellant.
Office of the Solicitor-General Ozaeta and Assistant Attorney Amparo for appellee.

IMPERIAL,J.:

The accused appealed from the judgment rendered by the Court of First Instance of Manila which found him guilty of the crime ofestafain the sum of P400 and sentenced him to six months and one day ofprision correccional, to indemnify the offended party in the above-stated sum, with the corresponding subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency, and to pay the costs. Upon arraignment, the accused voluntarily pleaded guilty. The court likewise declared him to be a habitual delinquent, in accordance with the allegations of the information and, considering as only three the seven previous convictions specified in the information, imposed upon him the additional penalty of six years and one day ofprision mayor, pursuant to subsection 5, paragraph (b), of article 62 of the Revised Penal Code.

In the memorandum filed by him, counselde oficiosubmits that the judgment appealed from is in accordance with law and recommends that it be affirmed. The Solicitor-General, however, recommends modification of the principal penalty on the ground that it has not been imposed in the corresponding period. Theestafacommitted by the accused is penalized by article 315, paragraph 3, of the Revised Penal Code, witharresto mayorin its maximum period toprision correccionalin its minimum period, by reason of the amount thereof. The mitigating circumstance of plea of guilty being compensated by the aggravating circumstance of recidivism, which is necessary inferred from the allegation of habitual delinquency, the penalty should be imposed in its medium period, which is from one year and one day to one year and eight months ofprision correccional. The subsidiary imprisonment imposed is not correct because by adding the principal and additional penalties, the resulting penalty is higher than that ofprision correccional(Edet, etc.vs.Director of Prisons, G.R. No. 45572, June 10, 1937). There is no error whatsoever in the appreciation of habitual delinquency nor in the imposition of the additional penalty.

Article 70 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended by section 2 of Commonwealth Act No. 217, provides, among other things, as follows:

The accused has been prosecuted in several other criminal cases and he likewise pleaded guilty in all of them. In the service of the penalties imposed in this and in the other cases, the rules prescribed in article 70, as amended, must be observed, and pursuant to the provisions contained in the above-quoted paragraphs, the accused should not serve a penalty of imprisonment for more than threefold the length of time corresponding to the most severe of the penalties imposed upon him in all of said cases and the maximum period of the penalty to be served by him shall in no case exceed forty years.

With the modification that the accused is sentenced to one year and one day ofprision correccionalwith the corresponding accessory penalties prescribed by law, and the suppression of the subsidiary imprisonment, the appealed judgment is affirmed in all other respects, with the costs of this instance to the accused-appellant. So ordered.

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