G.R. No. L-30271. June 15, 1979. THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. LEONARDO DAHIL, defendant-appellant.
FACTS

The case originated from the theft of a Toyota Crown sedan valued at P15,400.00 from the residence of Benjamin Abalos in Mandaluyong, Rizal, on October 29, 1966. The vehicle was later recovered in Malate, Manila, from the yard of Virgilio Apolinario. Apolinario, after his arrest, executed an affidavit implicating himself, an individual known only as “Kamlon,” and the appellant, Leonardo Dahil alias “Nardo,” in the crime. He detailed that in the early morning of the theft, Dahil and Kamlon fetched him, proceeded to the location of the car, and that Dahil personally drove the stolen vehicle away, which was then stored in Apolinario’s garage. Based on this sworn statement, an Information was filed charging Dahil with Qualified Theft.
The Court of First Instance of Rizal convicted Dahil as a co-principal and sentenced him to reclusion perpetua. The trial court found the affidavit of the convicted co-accused, Virgilio Apolinario, to be credible and sufficient to establish Dahil’s identity and participation, rejecting Dahil’s defense of denial and alibi. Dahil appealed the decision to the Supreme Court.

ISSUE

The core issue is whether the penalty of reclusion perpetua imposed by the trial court for the crime of Qualified Theft is correct.

RULING

The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction but modified the penalty. The Court agreed with the trial court’s classification of the crime as Qualified Theft under Article 310 of the Revised Penal Code, as the property stolen was a motor vehicle. The prescribed penalty for simple theft of property valued over P12,000.00 is prision mayor in its minimum and medium periods. For qualified theft, this penalty must be increased by two degrees.
The trial court erred in its computation. Increasing prision mayor by two degrees results in reclusion temporal in its medium and maximum periods, not reclusion perpetua. Furthermore, the trial court failed to apply the Indeterminate Sentence Law. With no mitigating or aggravating circumstances present, the proper penalty should be imposed within the range of the indeterminate sentence law.
Consequently, the Supreme Court modified the sentence. Appellant Leonardo Dahil was sentenced to an indeterminate penalty of ten (10) years and one (1) day of prision mayor as minimum, to fourteen (14) years, eight (8) months and one (1) day of reclusion temporal as maximum. The Court also made recommendations for his possible parole and executive clemency, noting the ordeal of his confinement.