THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS, PLAINTIFF AND APPELLEE, VS. MELCHOR ALCARAZ Y TANYAG (ALIAS MELCHOR ALCAZAR), DEFENDANT AND APPELLANT.

On May 6, 1931, Melchor Alcaraz stole from the tienda of Haw Paw in the City
of Manila an imitation concha necklace valued at P0.25. Alcaraz was caught in
the felonious act by the policeman Bolado and the trinket found in the
possession of Alcaraz was identified as belonging to the tienda by Haw
Paw. Thereafter, Alcaraz was prosecuted for the crime of qualified theft and as
an habitual delinquent. At the trial the accused admitted to three previous
convictions for the crime of theft committed within a period of ten years prior
to 1931, and the records of the police department of the City of Manila showed
twelve convictions to the credit of the accused, beginning in 1919, when the
accused must have been a youthful offender, and ending on June 27, 1929, when he
was released from prison. Convicted in the municipal court of the City of Manila
which clearly had jurisdiction of the offense, and again in the Court of First
Instance of Manila, under the circumstances of the case, the guilt of the
accused can admit of no doubt, and the only question for determination relates
to the imposition of the appropriate penalty.

When the theft was committed and when the decisions of the trial courts were
handed down, the Spanish Penal Code and the Habitual Delinquent Laws, Acts Nos.
3397 and 3586, were effective and were naturally applied to the case. The
Revised Penal Code took effect on January 1, 1932, just before the case was
submitted for decision in this court. The latter Code expressly repealed the
Spanish Penal Code and the two recidivist laws. Article 366 of the Revised Penal
Code specifically provided that “without prejudice to the provisions contained
in article 22 of this Code, felonies and misdemeanors, committed prior to the
date of effectiveness of this Code shall be punished in accordance with the Code
or Acts in force at the time of their commission.” Article 22 hereinbefore
mentioned provided: “Penal laws shall have a retroactive effect in so far as
they favor the person guilty of a felony, who is not a habitual criminal, as
this term is defined in rule 5 of article 62 of this Code, although at the time
of the publication of such laws a final sentence has been pronounced and the
convict is serving the same.” With these provisions of the new law in mind, we
find the present provisions for the crime of theft and habitual delinquency more
favorable to the accused than were provisions on the same subjects in the
Spanish Penal Code and the Habitual Delinquent Laws. The question is, should the
controlling provisions of the Spanish Penal Code and the ancillary laws
pertaining to habitual delinquency be applied, or should the provisions on the
same topics to be found in the Revised Penal Code be applied.

On examination, it will be noted that article 366 of the Revised Penal Code
contains an exception to the rule when it begins with the clause “without
prejudice to the provisions contained in article 22 of this Code.” In general,
therefore, this court will give retroactive effect to the provisions of the
penal laws including the Revised Penal Code in so far as they favor the person
guilty of a felony, in all pending cases. But the exception, article 22 of the
Revised Penal Code, in turn, contains an exception when there is introduced the
clause “who is not a habitual criminal, as this term is defined in rule 5 of
article 62 of this Code.” This innovation means that the habitual delinquent is
excepted from the benefits to be derived from the provisions of article 22 of
the Revised Penal Code.

In accordance, therefore, with the Spanish Penal Code and the Habitual
Delinquent Laws, the accused should be sentenced to one year and one day,
presidio correctional, with the accessories of the law, and as a habitual
delinquent to ten years additional imprisonment. These penalties may appear
extraordinarily severe and out of all proportion to the magnitude of the
offense, which consisted simply in the unlawful misappropriation of an imitation
necklace valued at P0.25, but as to this it is only for the courts to interpret
and apply the law as they find it. Wherefore the judgment appealed from will be
affirmed with the modifications above indicated, with the costs of all instances
against the appellant.

Avanceña, C. J., Johnson, Street, Villamor, Ostrand, Romualdez,
Villa-Real, and Imperial, JJ., concur.