IN BANC

[GR No. 46896. January 15, 1940.]

THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellant, against PABLO SAN JUAN Y

MONTEROSA, accused-appellant.

Mr. Matias E. Vergara on behalf of the appellant.

The Attorney General Mr. Ozaeta and the Assistant Attorney General Mr. Torres on
behalf of the Government.

SYLLABUS

1. CRIMINAL LAW AND CRIMINAL PROCEDURE; THEFT; HABITUAL CRIME; RECIDIVISM. -

Since the accused and appellant is a habitual offender, which presupposes recidivism, which
is an aggravating circumstance modifying criminal responsibility, the concurrence of said
circumstance must be appreciated, so the repeated penalty provided by law must be imposed
in its degree maximum.

2. ID .; ID .; ID .; JURISDICTION OF THE MANILA MUNICIPAL COURT TO IMPOSE THE

ADDITIONAL PENALTY. - "The jurisdiction of the Municipal Court of Manila, in cases of theft, is
determined; not by the penalty, but by the amount of what was stolen and, when this does
not exceed P200, said Court has jurisdiction, whatever the penalty indicated to crime. " In
accordance with this doctrine, the fact that the defendant and appellant is a habitual
offender, a condition that earned him an additional penalty, does not disqualify the Municipal
Court of Manila from hearing a case in which such condition is alleged, as long as the crime of
which he is accused is theft and the value of the thing stolen does not exceed P200.

3. ID .; ID .; ID .; ACCESSORY AFTER THE FACT. - "The provisions of Law 3397 on habitual
delinquency are applicable to the crimes enumerated, foreseen and punished by the Penal
Code not only in the degree of consummation but also in that of frustrated and attempted."

DECISION

VILLA-REAL, M .:

The accused Pablo San Juan y Monterosa was accused in the Municipal Court of Manila for the
crime of theft of five (5) bags of rice valued at P32. On trial, he was sentenced to suffer a
main penalty of 6 months of major arrest and to compensate the offended in the referred
sum of P32. He was also sentenced to suffer an additional penalty of seven years, four
months and one day in prison for being a habitual offender, and to pay the costs. Having
appealed to the Manila Court of First Instance, he was found guilty of the crime with which he
was accused and sentenced to the same penalty. Before this Court, in appeal, it raises the
following alleged errors as committed by the Court a quo in its referred judgment,
namely: jgc: chanrobles.com.ph

"1. That the penalty imposed upon the accused-appellant for the crime of theft alleged in the
information should have been at most, arresto mayor in its medium degree that is from two
months and one day to four months;

" 2. That the additional penalty of seven years, four months and one day of major prison for
habitual delinquency imposed by the Municipal Court and as affirmed by the Court of First
Instance of Manila is illegal. " Cralaw virtua1aw library

It is intended by the appellant that, not having proven that any mitigating or aggravating
circumstance has occurred in the commission of the crime, the penalty of major arrest in its
entirety, provided for in article 39, case 5. ", of the Revised Penal Code, or is from one month
and one day to six months of major arrest, it must be imposed in its medium degree or two
months and one day to four months of major arrest, instead of the maximum degree of the
aforementioned penalty, which the Lower court Since the defendant and appellant is a
habitual offender, which presupposes recidivism, which is an aggravating circumstance
modifying criminal responsibility, the concurrence of said circumstance must be appreciated,
so the repeated penalty provided by law must be imposed in its maximum degree. Not having
attended any mitigating circumstance that compensates it, the main penalty imposed by the
sentencing Court, which is the object of this appeal, is adjusted to the law.

It is also maintained by the appellant in his second allegation of alleged error that the
additional penalty of seven years, four months and one day in prison, imposed by the
Municipal Court of Manila for being said accused and appellant a habitual criminal, is contrary
to the law , since said Municipal Court of Manila did not have jurisdiction to impose said
additional penalty. In the case of the People of the Philippines against Liberato del Mundo, RG
No. 46531, this Court in a judgment promulgated on October 18, 1939, said the
following: jgc: chanrobles.com.ph

"We have declared in the case of 'The Philippines against Jesus Acha y Rivera' (RG No.
46714) that the jurisdiction of the Municipal Court of Manila, in cases of theft, is determined,
not by the penalty, but by the amount of the stolen and, when this does not exceed P200,
said Court has jurisdiction whatever the penalty for the crime. " cralaw virtua1aw library

According to this last sentence, the fact that the defendant and appellant is a habitual
criminal, a condition that gives him an additional penalty, does not disqualify the Municipal
Court of Manila from hearing a case in which such condition is alleged , as long as the crime
of which he is accused is theft and the value of the stolen thing does not exceed P200.

It was also claimed by the accused and appellant that his participation in the commission of
the crime of theft, of which he had been accused for the second time and for which he had
been convicted, was not as an author but simply as a cover-up, and, consequently , such a
second conviction cannot, with the conviction in the present case, integrate the concept of
habitual delinquency. In the case of the People of the Philippine Islands against Manuel
Abuyen and Elais (52 Jur. Fil., 749), this Court declared that. "... the provisions of Law No.
3397 on habitual delinquency are applicable to the crimes in it listed, provided for and
punished by the Penal Code not strictly in the degree of consummation but also in that of
frustrated and attempted. " cralaw virtua1aw library

Due to the considerations set out above, and not finding any error in the sentence appealed,
we confirm it in all its parts with the costs to the appellant. So ordered.

Avanceña, Pres., Imperial, Diaz, Laurel and Concepcion, MM., Are satisfied.
THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellant, against PABLO SAN JUAN Y
MONTEROSA, accused-appellant.

FACTS:

Pablo San Juan y Monterosa was accused in the Manila Municipal Court of the crime of
theft of five (5) bags of rice valued at P32. On trial, he was sentenced to suffer a main penalty of
arrest for six months and to compensate the offended in the referred sum of P32. He was also
sentenced to suffer an additional penalty of seven years, four months and one day in prison for
being a habitual offender, and to pay the costs. Having appealed to the Manila Court of First
Instance, he was found guilty of the crime with which he was accused and sentenced to the same
penalty.
Before this Court, in appeal, it raises the following alleged errors as committed by the Court a
quo in its referred judgment, namely: jgc: chanrobles.com.ph

"1. That the penalty imposed upon the accused-appellant for the crime of theft alleged in the
information should have been at most, arresto mayor in its medium degree that is from two
months and one day to four months;

" 2. That the additional penalty of seven years, four months and one day of major prison for
habitual delinquency imposed by the Municipal Court and as affirmed by the Court of First
Instance of Manila is illegal.

In his appeal, it is intended by the accused-appellant that, not having proven that any
mitigating or aggravating circumstance has occurred in the commission of the crime, the penalty
of arresto mayor in its entirety, provided for in Article 39, case 5, of the Revised Penal Code, or is
from one month and one day to six months of major arrest, it must be imposed in its medium
degree or two months and one day to four months of major arrest, instead of the maximum degree
of the aforementioned penalty, which was imposed by the Lower court.

It is also maintained by the appellant in his second allegation of error that the additional
penalty of seven years, four months and one day in prison imposed by the Municipal Court of
Manila for being a habitual criminal, is contrary to the law, since the Municipal Court of Manila
did not have jurisdiction to impose the additional penalty.

ISSUE:

WON the Manila Municipal Court committed an error on the penalty imposed upon the
accused-appellant and WON the same court have a jurisdiction to impose the said additional
penalty.

RULING:
The Municipal Court did not commit an error on the penalty imposed upon the accused-appellant.

Since the accused and appellant is a habitual offender, which presupposes recidivism, which
is an aggravating circumstance modifying criminal responsibility, the concurrence of said
circumstance must be appreciated, so the repeated penalty provided by law must be
imposed in its degree maximum.
"The jurisdiction of the Municipal Court of Manila, in cases of theft, is determined; not by the
penalty, but by the amount of what was stolen and, when this does not exceed P200, said
Court has jurisdiction, whatever the penalty indicated to crime. " In accordance with this
doctrine, the fact that the defendant and appellant is a habitual offender, a condition that
earned him an additional penalty, does not disqualify the Municipal Court of Manila from
hearing a case in which such condition is alleged, as long as the crime of which he is
accused is theft and the value of the thing stolen does not exceed P200.

Due to the considerations set out above, and not finding any error in the sentence appealed,
we confirm it in all its parts with the costs to the appellant. So ordered.