G.R. No. 48976; October 11, 1943
THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. MORO MACBUL, defendant-appellant.
FACTS
The appellant, Moro Macbul, pleaded guilty to an information for the theft of two sacks of papers valued at P10 belonging to the Provincial Government of Sulu, committed on March 9, 1943. The information also alleged he was a habitual delinquent due to two prior convictions for the same crime on November 14, 1928, and August 20, 1942. The trial court sentenced him to one month and one day of arresto mayor as the principal penalty and an additional two years, four months, and one day of prision correccional for habitual delinquency. The court found two mitigating circumstances: a plea of guilty and extreme poverty and necessity (under Article 13[10] of the Revised Penal Code), but considered the aggravating circumstance of recidivism in imposing both the principal and additional penalties.
ISSUE
1. Whether the trial court correctly considered recidivism as an aggravating circumstance for imposing the additional penalty for habitual delinquency.
2. Whether the appellant was correctly classified as a habitual delinquent.
3. Whether extreme poverty and necessity constitute a mitigating circumstance.
RULING
The Supreme Court modified the trial court’s decision.
1. On Recidivism and Habitual Delinquency: The Court agreed with the appellant’s contention that recidivism should not be considered as an aggravating circumstance for habitual delinquency, as it is inherent in the concept. However, the more fundamental error was the appellant’s classification as a habitual delinquent. Under Article 62, No. 5 (last paragraph) of the Revised Penal Code, a person is deemed habitually delinquent if, within ten years from release or last conviction for specified crimes, he is found guilty a third time or oftener. The appellant’s first conviction in 1928 and second in 1942 were over ten years apart (fourteen years). Therefore, only the 1942 conviction could be counted, and the appellant did not qualify as a habitual delinquent. The additional penalty was eliminated.
2. On Extreme Poverty as a Mitigating Circumstance: The Court approved the trial court’s consideration of extreme poverty and necessity as a mitigating circumstance under Article 13(10) (analogous circumstances). The trial court found the appellant, a father of several minor children, stole the papers out of extreme poverty and economic difficulties caused by the ongoing war, selling them for P2.50 to buy food. The Court recognized the principle that the right to life is more sacred than property rights, though it did not condone theft. Justice Bocobo, in a concurring opinion, provided additional grounds, arguing that extreme poverty could be considered an analogous mitigating circumstance (similar to powerful impulse or diminished will-power due to illness under Article 13[6] and [9]) or an incomplete exempting circumstance related to irresistible force or uncontrollable fear (under Article 12[5] and [6], via Article 13[1]).
DISPOSITIVE PORTION:
The sentence was modified by affirming the principal penalty of one month and one day of arresto mayor and eliminating the additional penalty for habitual delinquency. No costs.