GR 45470; (June, 1937) (Digest)
G.R. No. 45470 ; June 30, 1937
THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. PEDRO JAVIER Y RIVERO (alias PEDRO RIVERO), defendant-appellant.
FACTS
The accused, Pedro Javier y Rivero, was charged with the crime of theft for stealing part of a harness valued at P10 on January 15, 1937. The information also alleged that he was a habitual delinquent, having been previously convicted five times by final judgments for theft and estafa. Upon arraignment in the Court of First Instance of Manila, he pleaded guilty. The trial court found him guilty and sentenced him to one month and one day of arresto mayor as the principal penalty and, as a habitual delinquent, an additional penalty of ten years and one day of prision mayor. The accused appealed, questioning the validity of the arraignment procedure.
ISSUE
1. Whether the arraignment was valid despite the record not affirmatively showing that the accused was informed of his right to counsel and was provided with a copy of the information.
2. Whether the penalties imposed by the trial court were correct.
RULING
1. On the validity of the arraignment: The Supreme Court held the arraignment was valid. The record showed the court had assigned a counsel de oficio to defend the accused. The Court presumed that official duty had been regularly performed, and there was no affirmative showing that the accused was deprived of his rights. The failure to detail every procedural step in the record did not invalidate the proceedings, though the Court reiterated the need for clerks to meticulously record all required details of arraignment.
2. On the penalties: The Supreme Court modified the principal penalty but affirmed the additional penalty. The trial court erred in not considering the aggravating circumstance of recidivism (evidenced by prior convictions) and in treating the plea of guilty as mitigating. A plea of guilty to mitigate must be made before the prosecution presents evidence in the trial court, not on appeal. With recidivism as the sole aggravating circumstance and no mitigating circumstance, the principal penalty for theft (value over P5 but not exceeding P50) under Article 309(5) of the Revised Penal Code should be imposed in its maximum period. Thus, the principal penalty was increased to four months and one day of arresto mayor. The additional penalty of ten years and one day of prision mayor for habitual delinquency was correct, as the current charge was the fifth conviction, warranting the penalty under Article 62(5)(c) of the Revised Penal Code.
DISPOSITIVE:
The appealed judgment was AFFIRMED with the MODIFICATION that the accused-appellant is sentenced to the principal penalty of four months and one day of arresto mayor. The additional penalty of ten years and one day of prision mayor for habitual delinquency was affirmed. Costs against the appellant.
AI Generated by Armztrong.