GR 37207; (December, 1932) (Digest)
March 10, 2026GR 41284; (November, 1934) (Digest)
March 10, 2026G.R. No. 37054, December 23, 1932
THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS, plaintiff-appellee, vs. EMILIO SANCHEZ Y MERCADO, defendant-appellant.
FACTS
The appellant, Emilio Sanchez y Mercado, was convicted in the Court of First Instance of Manila for the crime of robbery. He was sentenced to a principal penalty of three years, eight months and one day of prision correccional and an additional penalty of three years for habitual delinquency. The prosecution established the aggravating circumstances of nocturnity and recidivism.
ISSUE
The sole issue relates to the proper penalty to be imposed, specifically: (1) the degree of the principal penalty for the robbery, and (2) the degree of the additional penalty for habitual delinquency.
RULING
The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction but modified the penalties.
1. Principal Penalty: The crime fell under Article 293 and Article 294(5) of the Revised Penal Code, with a prescribed penalty of prision correccional to prision mayor in its medium degree. Considering the aggravating circumstances of nocturnity and recidivism, the principal penalty was properly imposed in its maximum degree. The Court assessed the principal penalty at six years, ten months and one day.
2. Additional Penalty for Habitual Delinquency: The Court held that while aggravating and mitigating circumstances determine the degree of the principal penalty, they do not automatically dictate the degree of the additional penalty for habitual delinquency under Article 62, paragraph 5(a). The additional penalty is to be imposed within the statutory limits based on the court’s sound discretion, taking into account all facts and circumstances of the case. The trial court’s imposition of a three-year additional penalty, which was within the prescribed range (two years, four months and one day to six years), was affirmed. The Attorney-General’s argument that the additional penalty must also be in the maximum degree because the principal penalty was in the maximum degree was rejected.
AI Generated by Armztrong.
