GR 41311; (August, 1934) (Digest)
G.R. No. 41311 ; August 28, 1934
THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS, plaintiff-appellee, vs. LEON MALLARI Y LAGMAN and YU, defendants-appellants.
FACTS
Defendants Leon Mallari and Lao Yu were convicted of robbery. They tricked Ellizar Dimson into accompanying them, feigned a need to change money, and upon Dimson showing his wallet, Mallari grabbed it and took P1.50. Lao Yu threatened Dimson to prevent an outcry. Both were caught shortly after. Mallari was a recidivist, having been previously convicted of robbery. Lao Yu had been sent to the Boys’ Training School for theft as a minor, but there was no evidence of a final judgment of conviction for that prior act.
ISSUE
1. Whether the trial court’s factual findings were correct.
2. Whether Lao Yu should be considered a recidivist.
3. What the proper penalties are for the defendants under the Revised Penal Code and the Indeterminate Sentence Law.
RULING
The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction but modified the penalties. It held:
1. The trial court’s factual findings were supported by the evidence.
2. Lao Yu is not a recidivist. Being sent to the Boys’ Training School as a minor under Act No. 3203 (the precursor to Article 80 of the Revised Penal Code) did not constitute a final judgment of conviction, which is required to establish recidivism.
3. The crime committed was robbery under Article 294(5) of the Revised Penal Code. For Mallari, the aggravating circumstances of recidivism and craft were present. For Lao Yu, only craft was present.
4. Applying the Indeterminate Sentence Law, the Court modified the penalties: Mallari was sentenced to an indeterminate penalty of 2 years of prision correccional to 6 years, 10 months, and 1 day of prision mayor; Lao Yu was sentenced to 1 year of prision correccional to 6 years, 10 months, and 1 day of prision mayor.
5. The Court, in setting the minimum penalty, clarified that it should be within the court’s sound discretion, considering factors like the accused’s age, health, mentality, morality, and criminal record, and that a reasonable interval between the minimum and maximum should be fixed to serve the purposes of the Indeterminate Sentence Law. (A dissenting opinion argued that the minimum should always be within the penalty next lower to the maximum, as previously held in People v. Ducosin).
AI Generated by Armztrong.