GR L 4009; (October, 1951) (Digest)
G.R. No. L-4009 October 19, 1951
The People of the Philippines, plaintiff-appellee, vs. Ireneo Ibasco y Cabares, defendant-appellant.
FACTS
Ireneo Ibasco was charged with qualified theft for stealing a motor vehicle owned by Buenaventura R. Nadres on or about April 30, 1948, in Caloocan, Rizal. The information alleged that the vehicle, recovered in a badly damaged condition on May 9, 1948, caused actual and consequential damage of P1,280. The information also stated, in its second paragraph, that the accused had been previously sentenced for the crime of theft by the Justice of the Peace of Caloocan on February 21, 1948, to one month and one day imprisonment in Criminal Case No. 12793. Initially pleading not guilty, the accused later withdrew that plea and pleaded guilty to the charge. The trial court convicted him under Article 310 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended by Republic Act No. 120, considering the mitigating circumstance of a plea of guilty but the aggravating circumstance of recidivism. He was sentenced to an indeterminate penalty of 4 years, 9 months, and 11 days of prision correccional to 9 years, 4 months, and 1 day of prision mayor, plus indemnity and costs.
ISSUE
1. Whether the lower court erred in finding the presence of the aggravating circumstance of recidivism.
2. Whether the lower court erred in imposing the indeterminate penalty.
RULING
1. The Supreme Court held that the lower court did not err in finding recidivism. The allegation in the information’s second paragraph, stating the accused’s previous conviction for theft, was a sufficient allegation of recidivism. It is not necessary for the information to explicitly state the conclusion “that the accused is a recidivist.” Citing U.S. vs. Burlado, the Court ruled that an allegation of previous conviction is sufficient. Furthermore, such a previous conviction is understood to be by final judgment. The mitigating circumstance of the plea of guilty was correctly offset by this aggravating circumstance of recidivism.
2. The Supreme Court affirmed the penalty imposed by the trial court. The crime fell under Article 310 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended by Republic Act No. 120, because the property stolen was a motor vehicle. Although the actual value of the car might have been greater, the information specified the damage as P1,280, which the Court accepted for the purpose of the case. Applying the law, the penalty was correct. The judgment was affirmed with costs against the appellant.