G.R. No. 29242, August 25, 1928
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES ISLANDS, plaintiff-appellee, vs. PEDRO MADRANO Y TAPIT (alias Jose Lunod), defendant-appellant.

FACTS

The appellant, Pedro Madrano y Tapit, was charged with the crime of qualified theft for stealing personal property belonging to Potenciana A. Bumanlag, with a total value of P157 (equivalent to 785 pesetas). The information also alleged that he was an habitual delinquent under Act No. 3397, having been previously convicted twice for theft and twice for estafa. Upon arraignment before the Court of First Instance, the defendant pleaded guilty. The trial court sentenced him to four months and one day of *arresto mayor* for the principal offense of qualified theft, plus an additional penalty of sixteen years of imprisonment as an habitual delinquent under Act No. 3397.

ISSUE

1. Whether the additional penalty of sixteen years imposed under the Habitual Delinquency Law (Act No. 3397) constitutes cruel and unusual punishment.
2. Whether the penalty imposed for the principal offense of qualified theft was correct.

RULING

1. No, the additional penalty is not cruel and unusual punishment. The Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of statutes imposing more severe penalties on habitual offenders. Citing U.S. jurisprudence (*Graham vs. West Virginia*), the Court explained that such laws do not punish the offender a second time for prior crimes but rather impose a heavier penalty due to the aggravated guilt from repeated criminal conduct. Therefore, the additional penalty of sixteen years under Act No. 3397 was valid.

2. No, the penalty for the principal offense was incorrect and must be modified. The Attorney-General correctly pointed out that the information alleged the theft of 785 pesetas. Under Article 518 of the Penal Code, the penalty for qualified theft of this amount should be one degree higher than that prescribed for simple theft, i.e., *presidio correccional* in its medium degree to *presidio mayor* in its minimum degree. The trial court erroneously imposed only *arresto mayor*. Consequently, the Supreme Court modified the penalty for the principal offense to four years, two months, and one day of *presidio correccional*.

DISPOSITIVE PORTION:
The appealed judgment was MODIFIED. The penalty for the principal offense of qualified theft was increased to four years, two months, and one day of *presidio correccional*, with the accessory penalties. The additional penalty of sixteen years under Act No. 3397 was affirmed. In all other respects, the judgment was affirmed. Costs were imposed on the appellant.