G.R. No. 30664 , February 2, 1929
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS, plaintiff-appellee, vs. MANUEL ABUYEN Y ELAIS, defendant-appellant.

FACTS

Manuel Abuyen y Elais was convicted by the Court of First Instance of Manila for the crime of frustrated qualified theft. He pleaded guilty. The information alleged that he was an habitual delinquent under Act No. 3397 , having been previously convicted of theft three times. The trial court sentenced him to one month and one day of *arresto mayor* for the principal crime and an additional penalty of ten years imprisonment for habitual delinquency. Abuyen appealed, raising several alleged errors.

ISSUES:
1. Whether the trial court erred in not informing the appellant of his right to counsel before arraignment.
2. Whether the trial court erred in imposing the additional penalty for habitual delinquency without requiring the prosecution to prove the prior convictions.
3. Whether the trial court erred in its determination of the penalty and the value of the stolen article.
4. Whether Act No. 3397 (Habitual Delinquency Law) is unconstitutional for imposing cruel and unusual punishment.
5. Whether the frustrated crime of theft falls under the crimes enumerated in Act No. 3397 for purposes of imposing the additional penalty for habitual delinquency.

RULING

The Supreme Court AFFIRMED the conviction but MODIFIED the penalty for the principal offense.

1. On the right to counsel: The Court held that in the absence of proof to the contrary, it must be presumed that the trial court complied with its duty to inform the accused of his right to counsel before arraignment, as provided by law.

2. On proving prior convictions: The Court ruled that by pleading guilty to the information which specifically alleged his three prior convictions and his status as an habitual delinquent, the appellant admitted all these facts. This relieved the prosecution of the burden of proving them.

3. On the penalty and value: The Court held that by pleading guilty, the appellant also admitted the alleged value of the stolen article (P20) as stated in the information. However, the Court found the penalty for the principal offense was incorrectly computed. Applying the Penal Code provisions on frustrated theft and recidivism, the correct penalty should be *arresto mayor* in its medium period (2 months and 1 day to 4 months).

4. On constitutionality: The Court cited previous jurisprudence (*People vs. Nayco* and *People vs. Sierra*) and held that Act No. 3397 is not unconstitutional. The additional penalty for habitual delinquency is a valid exercise of legislative power aimed at social defense against persistent offenders.

5. On applicability to frustrated crimes: This was the core issue. The Court held that Act No. 3397 applies not only to consummated crimes but also to attempted or frustrated crimes of the types enumerated (theft, robbery, estafa, etc.). The Court reasoned that:
* The law’s purpose is to protect society from multi-recidivists who show a persistent criminal inclination.
* A person who commits an attempted or frustrated crime subjectively reveals the same degree of criminal depravity and perversity as one who commits a consummated crime.
* Excluding attempts or frustrations from the law’s coverage would thwart its clear intent and expose society to constant menace from such delinquents.
* This interpretation aligns with Spanish jurisprudence, which considered frustrated and attempted crimes for aggravation due to recidivism.
* The rule of strict construction of penal laws does not apply when it would defeat the clear and manifest intention of the legislature.

DISPOSITIVE PORTION:
The appellant is sentenced to two months and one day of *arresto mayor* for the crime of frustrated qualified theft, and to the additional penalty of ten years imprisonment under Act No. 3397 for habitual delinquency, with costs.