GERONIMO, ANDRAE NICOLO

MULTI-RECIDIVISM OR HABITAL DELINQUENCY

PEOPLE v. TOLENTINO

August 5,1942 G.R. No. 48740 Ozaeta, J:

Relevant Provisions/Concepts/Doctrines

RPC 65: Effects of the Attendance of Mitigating or Aggravating Circumstances and of

Habitual Delinquency. — Mitigating or aggravating circumstances and habitual delinquency
shall be taken into account for the purpose of diminishing or increasing the penalty in
conformity with the following rules:

(5) Habitual delinquency shall have the following effects:

(a) Upon a third conviction the culprit shall be sentenced to the penalty provided by
law for the last crime of which he be found guilty and to the additional penalty of
prisión correccional in its medium and maximum periods;

(b) Upon a fourth conviction the culprit shall be sentenced to the penalty provided for
the last crime of which he be found guilty and to the additional penalty of prisión mayor
in its minimum and medium periods; and

(c) Upon a fifth or additional conviction, the culprit shall be sentenced to the penalty
provided for the last crime of which he be found guilty and to the additional penalty of
prisión mayor in its maximum period to reclusión temporal in its minimum period.

Notwithstanding the provisions of this article, the total of the two penalties to be
imposed upon the offender, in conformity herewith, shall in no case exceed 30 years.

For the purpose of this article, a person shall be deemed to be habitual delinquent, if
within a period of ten years from the date of his release or last conviction of the crimes
robo, hurto, estafa, or falsificacion, he is found guilty of any of said crimes a third time
or oftener.

Doctrine:
The first conviction of an accused should be taken into account as an element of habitual
delinquency.

ISSUE

Should the first conviction be counted when counting convictions for habitual deliquency?
(No)

FACTS

The accused(Faustino Tolentino & Luisa Corpuz Quitong) pleaded guilty to the charge of theft
of seven shirts valued at P14 belonging to one Cosme Famorca. Both, being recidivists, were
sentenced in the Court of First Instance to suffer two months and one day of arresto mayor
and to pay the corresponding civil indemnity to the offended party.

Faustino Tolentino y de Dios was further sentenced to suffer an additional penalty of six years
and one day of prision mayor for habitual delinquency but appealed to court. According to the
accused he should only be sentenced as if the present were only his third conviction, on the
ground that the first conviction should be taken as an aggravating circumstance and should
be disregarded as an element of habitual delinquency.(The accused already had 4
convictions prior to this but the fourth according to him should be disregarded because the
date of his release in connection therewith was not shown.)

RULING

Yes. The first conviction should be counted when determining the number of
conviction under habitual delinquency.

The first conviction of an accused should be taken into account as an element of habitual
delinquency. This is in accordance with the Habitual Delinquency Law under RPC62(5). This
is because a habitual delinquent is necessarily a recidivist, and in imposing the principal
penalty upon him the aggravating circumstance of recidivism has to be taken into account. In
fixing "the penalty provided by law for the last crime" as required in paragraph 5 (a), (b ), and
(c) of article 62 of the Revised Penal Code, the court cannot disregard articles 14 (9) and 64
of the Revised Penal Code, which respectively define recidivism as an aggravating
circumstance and lay down the rule for the application of aggravating and mitigating
circumstances. However, for the purpose of fixing the additional penalty, recidivism cannot be
taken as an aggravating circumstance for the reason that it is inherent in habitual
delinquency.

Additional Issue:
The previous fourth conviction of the accused alleged in the information cannot be
disregarded solely because the date of his release in connection therewith has not been
shown. It appearing that he was sentenced for the fourth time on September 30, 1935, to
suffer two months and one day of arresto mayor plus an additional penalty of two years, four
months, and twenty days of prision correccional, it can readily be seen that he must have
been released in connection therewith less than ten years previous to August 13, 1941, the
date of the commission of the offense complained of in the present case.

It results that this is appellant's fifth conviction and, accordingly, he must be sentenced under
paragraph 5 (c) of article 62 to the additional penalty of prision mayor in its maximum period
to reclusion temporal in its minimum period. This penalty must be imposed in its minimum
degree because of the mitigating circumstance of plea of guilty.