G.R. No. 45698, December 18, 1937
CARLOS LOPIDO Y GALANG, petitioner, vs. THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES and THE COURT OF APPEALS, respondents.

FACTS

Petitioner Carlos Lopido y Galang was convicted of theft by the Court of First Instance of Manila, which also declared him a habitual delinquent, imposing an additional penalty. The Court of Appeals modified the judgment by increasing the principal penalty but sustained the additional penalty for habitual delinquency. Lopido challenged the validity of the additional penalty, arguing that the information alleging his habitual delinquency was insufficient because it did not state the dates of commission of his previous crimes, relying on the rulings in People vs. Venus and People vs. Tapel.

ISSUE

Whether the information sufficiently alleged habitual delinquency to validly impose the additional penalty on the petitioner.

RULING

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the Court of Appeals. The Court distinguished this case from Venus and Tapel, where the accused pleaded guilty and the informations were found insufficient for failing to allege essential dates (commission, conviction, and release). Here, Lopido did not plead guilty but went to trial, during which the prosecution proved the necessary dates of his prior convictions and releases. The evidence showed he had been convicted of theft on March 3 and 5, 1934 (treated as one conviction), again on February 1, 1936, and committed his last theft on September 4, 1936. This established his status as a recidivist for the third time, making him a habitual delinquent under the law. The Court held that the additional penalty was correctly imposed, as the deficiency in the information was cured by the evidence presented at trial.

AI Generated by Armztrong.