GR 45367; (February, 1937) (Digest)
G.R. No. 45367 ; February 10, 1937
THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. FAUSTINO SANTIAGO SIM, defendant-appellant.
FACTS
The defendant, Faustino Santiago Sim, was charged with estafa (amounting to P50) and was alleged in the information to be a habitual delinquent under the Revised Penal Code. The information stated he had two prior final convictions: one for theft (October 11, 1935) and one for estafa (November 1, 1935), and that he was released from serving these sentences on January 8, 1936. During the trial for the present estafa charge, the defendant voluntarily confessed his guilt. The lower court convicted him and imposed an additional penalty for habitual delinquency.
ISSUE
Whether the defendant may be validly declared a habitual delinquent based on the allegations in the information and his prior convictions.
RULING
No. The Supreme Court ruled that the information was defective for alleging habitual delinquency. To properly allege habitual delinquency under Article 62(5) of the Revised Penal Code, the information must state not only the dates of the final judgments and the accused’s release, but also the specific dates of the commission of the previous crimes. This is necessary to determine if the accused was a recidivist at the time of his prior convictions, as a person is not a recidivist if, at the time of trial for one crime, he has not been previously convicted by final judgment of another crime under the same title of the Code. The information’s omission created doubt as to whether the defendant was a recidivist for the first time when sentenced on November 1, 1935. The Court inferred he was not, as the penalty imposed for that prior estafa was the minimum, which would have been increased if recidivism had been present. Therefore, only one recidivism (from the prior conviction to the present crime) could be considered, and this was offset by the mitigating circumstance of voluntary confession of guilt. The penalty was modified by eliminating the additional penalty for habitual delinquency and imposing the correct penalty for the estafa charge. The judgment was affirmed with this modification.
AI Generated by Armztrong.