THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS, PLAINTIFF AND APPELLEE, VS. FLAVIANO AGUINALDO, DEFENDANT AND APPELLANT.

In the Court of First Instance of Manila, Flaviano Aguinaldo was
charged with the crime of robbery in an information which alleged:

“That
on or about March 22, 1923, in the City of Manila, Philippine Islands,
the above named accused scaled and entered house No. 21 of Brixton Hill
Street of said city, which is the residence of one E. C. Walters, and
taking advantage of the darkness of the night deliberately sought for
the purpose, did steal and take away with intent of gain several pieces
of jewelry of the total value of one thousand two hundred and one pesos
(P1,201), Philippine currency, belonging to said E. C. Walters to the
damage and prejudice of the latter in the aforesaid sum which is
equivalent to 6,005 pesetas.

“That the accused is
a habitual recidivist under the provisions of Act No. 3062 of the
Philippine Legislature for having already been previously convicted
thrice of robbery and twice of theft by virtue of final judgments
rendered by competent courts, having committed the crime of which he is
now accused after evading service of the sentence rendered against him
on February 14, 1919, and while he was a fugitive from justice.
Contrary to law.”

The learned trial judge found the accused guilty of the crime described in the information. The attorney de oficio
for the appellant expresses the opinion that the guilt of the accused
has been proved beyond a reasonable doubt. The Attorney-General reaches
the same conclusion. The evidence is overwhelmingly demonstrative of
the culpability of the appellant.

The only matter remaining
is to fix upon a correct penalty. On this point, a difference of views
has arisen between the trial judge, counsel de oficio, and the Attorney-General.

The first paragraph of article 508 of the Penal Code, in relation with
No. 2 of the same article, cannot be applied since it is neither
alleged nor proved that the accused was an “armed person” when he
committed the robbery, or that he broke any wall, roof, or floor or
forced any door or window of the house robbed. The facts rather fall
under case No. 1 of article 508, in connection with the paragraph next
following case No. 5 of the same article. In other words, the robber
entered the house through an opening not intended for entrance or
egress, that is, by “scaling.” As it is not shown that the malefactor
carried a weapon and as the value of the property taken exceeds 1250 pesetas a penalty next lower in degree should be imposed. Said penalty is presidio correccional in its medium degree to presidio mayor
in its minimum degree for the principal of the consummated crime. There
are present two aggravating circumstances, namely, that the crime was
committed in the nighttime and that the accused is a recidivist. The
maximum of the maximum penalty provided by law, or eight years
imprisonment presidio mayor should therefore be imposed.

It was alleged in the information that the accused was a habitual
delinquent. This allegation was demonstrated at the trial. The new law
covering such a situation is Act No. 3062, entitled “An Act to provide
additional penalties for habitual delinquents.” It reads:

“Any
person who has twice or oftener been convicted of the crime of theft or
robbery and who commits either of said crimes within the five years
next following the day on which he completed service of his last
sentence, shall be deemed a habitual delinquent and shall suffer the
penalty provided by law for the last crime committed and an additional
penalty equivalent to one-half of the penalty imposed therefor, and the
penalty herein provided shall be imposed upon such, habitual delinquent
every time thereafter he shall commit either of said misdemeanors prior
to the expiration of ten years from and after the date on which he
completed serving his last sentence.”

The
penalties provided by the Penal Code for the crime of theft or robbery
as the case may be, must first be applied without reference to the
Habitual Delinquency Law. In the exact words of the law, the habitual
delinquent “shall suffer the penalty provided by law for the last crime
committed.” A determination of the penalty is arrived at independently
of the provisions of the Habitual Delinquency Law even to the extent of
considering recidivism either as a qualifying or an aggravating
circumstance. Then to this penalty is added one-half of the penalty
imposed so as to carry out the purposes of the law.

The
Legislature has required the courts to take into consideration the
persistence of the defendant in his criminal course. The prime idea of
a Habitual Delinquency Law is to confine the offender for a longer
period of time than the ordinary criminal is confined for the
protection of society. This intention of the Legislature must be
enforced. (People vs. Clemente, No. 22880.^ª)

One-half of the penalty imposed in this instance is four years of presidio mayor. Adding this additional penalty to the regular penalty, a total of twelve years imprisonment results.

The judgment appealed from is modified and in lieu of fifteen years imprisonment presidio mayor, the defendant and appellant is sentenced to twelve years imprisonment presidio mayor,
with the accessory penalties provided by law, to return to Mrs. E. C.
Walters the articles named in the information or to reimburse her for
their value in the amount of P680 and to pay the costs of both
instances. So ordered.

Avanceña, C. J., Johnson, Street, Villamor, Johns, and Villa-Real, JJ., concur.

---

^[ª] Promulgated January 19, 1925, not reported.