G.R. No. 35346 ; September 10, 1931
THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS, plaintiff-appellee, vs. PEDRO SORIANO Y SISON, defendant-appellant.

FACTS

The accused, Pedro Soriano y Sison, was charged with frustrated theft for attempting to steal a fighting rooster valued at P15 from Antonio Borja on March 6, 1931. He was caught in the act of untying the rooster and fled upon being discovered. The information also alleged that he was a habitual delinquent under Act No. 3586 , having been previously convicted seven times for theft and once for attempted robbery within ten years from his last conviction on June 9, 1924. The trial court convicted him of attempted theft and imposed a fine with subsidiary imprisonment, plus an additional penalty of twenty-one years’ imprisonment as a habitual criminal.

ISSUE

Whether the Habitual Delinquency Law ( Act No. 3586 ) is constitutional, and whether it applies to frustrated or attempted crimes.

RULING

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the trial court. It held that the evidence sufficiently established the accused’s guilt for attempted theft. Regarding the constitutional challenge, the Court ruled that Act No. 3586 is valid and constitutional, rejecting the arguments that it is ex post facto, discriminatory, or imposes double jeopardy. The Court cited prior jurisprudence (*People vs. Sierra, People vs. Ortezuela, People vs. Madrano, People vs. Montera*) upholding the law’s validity. Furthermore, citing People vs. Abuyen, the Court held that the habitual delinquency law applies not only to consummated crimes but also to frustrated or attempted crimes.

AI Generated by Armztrong.