GR 41308; (August, 1934) (Digest)
G.R. No. 41308 ; August 9, 1934
THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS, plaintiff-appellee, vs. CO CHANG, defendant-appellant.
FACTS
The defendant, Co Chang, was convicted by the Court of First Instance of Manila for the crime of robbery in an inhabited house. The information alleged that on November 18, 1933, he broke into a house on Soler Street, Manila, and stole various personal properties with a total value of P193. The information further alleged that he was a habitual delinquent, having been previously convicted twice for theft. The trial court found him guilty and imposed a principal penalty and an additional penalty for habitual delinquency. On appeal, the defendant assigned two errors: (1) that the court erred in holding him responsible for the loss of a pair of earrings and two coats, and in ordering their return, and (2) that the court erred in not considering a mitigating circumstance for his voluntary confession of his former convictions when imposing the additional penalty for habitual delinquency.
ISSUE
1. Whether the evidence was sufficient to hold the defendant responsible for the theft of the pair of earrings and two coats.
2. Whether the mitigating circumstance of voluntary confession of guilt applies to the imposition of the additional penalty for habitual delinquency.
RULING
1. On the first issue: The Supreme Court modified the trial court’s decision. It found the evidence insufficient to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the defendant took the pair of earrings and the two coats. All other stolen articles were recovered from the defendant’s possession when he was captured minutes after the robbery. However, these specific items were not found on his person, and there was no evidence he dropped or disposed of them. Therefore, the defendant’s liability for these items was removed.
2. On the second issue: The Supreme Court ruled that the mitigating circumstance of voluntary confession of guilt under Article 13 of the Revised Penal Code does not apply to the additional penalty for habitual delinquency. The defendant did not plead guilty or confess prior to the presentation of the prosecution’s evidence; he only admitted his prior convictions after the prosecution presented its case. Furthermore, citing People vs. Tanyaquin, the Court held that the rules on mitigating and aggravating circumstances for the principal penalty do not bind the court in imposing the additional penalty for habitual delinquency. The defendant, being a recidivist, is also not entitled to the benefits of the Indeterminate Sentence Law.
The Court affirmed the trial court’s decision with modifications: the defendant is sentenced to a principal penalty of three years, six months, and eleven days of prision correccional, and an additional penalty of seven years, four months, and one day of prision mayor for being a habitual delinquent, but without liability for the un-recovered earrings and coats.
AI Generated by Armztrong.