0% found this document useful (0 votes)
95 views2 pages

Appeal on Frustrated Theft Case

1) The defendant was found guilty of frustrated theft and sentenced to 11 days in jail and 2 years, 4 months, and 1 day in prison for being a habitual offender. 2) On appeal, the defendant argued the 11 day jail sentence was incorrect for frustrated theft, which has a lower penalty than consummated theft. 3) The court upheld the 11 day jail sentence as consistent with law but removed the habitual offender designation and additional penalty, as the information provided insufficient details to prove habitual offending.

Uploaded by

Apple Obias
Copyright
© Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOC, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
0% found this document useful (0 votes)
95 views2 pages

Appeal on Frustrated Theft Case

1) The defendant was found guilty of frustrated theft and sentenced to 11 days in jail and 2 years, 4 months, and 1 day in prison for being a habitual offender. 2) On appeal, the defendant argued the 11 day jail sentence was incorrect for frustrated theft, which has a lower penalty than consummated theft. 3) The court upheld the 11 day jail sentence as consistent with law but removed the habitual offender designation and additional penalty, as the information provided insufficient details to prove habitual offending.

Uploaded by

Apple Obias
Copyright
© Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOC, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd

EN BANC G.R. No.

45089 September 17, 1936

THE PEOP E O! THE PH" "PP"NE "S AN#S, Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. #O$"NA#OR ! ORES % AG&" AR, Defendant-Appellant. Artemio M. Lobrin for appellant. Acting Solicitor-General Melencio for appellee. '" A(REA , J.)

This is an appeal taken by the accused Dominador Flores y Aguilar from the judgment of the Court of First Instance of anila finding him self!confessed and guilty of the crime of frustrated theft provided for and punished in article "#$, case %, in connection &ith article %#, of the 'evised (enal Code, and sentencing him to the principal penalty of eleven days of arresto menor and the additional penalty of t&o years, four months and one day of prision correccional for being a habitual delin)uent, &ith the accessory penalties of the la& and costs.chanroblesvirtuala&library chanrobles virtual la& library In support of his appeal, the appellant contends that the court a quo erred in sentencing him to the principal penalty of eleven days of arresto menor.chanroblesvirtuala&library chanrobles virtual la& library The penalty prescribed by article "#$, case %, of the 'evised (enal Code for the crime of consummated theft is arresto mayor to its full e*tent, if the value of the thing stolen is over (% but does not e*ceed (%#. As the crime of &hich the defendant!appellant pleaded guilty is frustrated theft, the penalty &hich should be imposed upon him is the one ne*t lo&er in degree to arresto mayor, &hich is arresto menor, in accordance &ith the provisions of article %#, in connection &ith articles +, and -# of said Code. Inasmuch as the aggravating circumstance of recidivism .art. ,/, subsec. $ of the 'evised (enal Code0,&hich is compensated by the mitigating circumstance of the plea of guilty .art. ,", subsec. -, of said Code0, &as present at the commission of the crime, said penalty of arresto should be imposed in its medium period, or from eleven to t&enty days of arresto menor, pursuant to rules , and / of article +/ of said Code. The principal penalty imposed by the trial court is, therefore, in accordance &ith la&.chanroblesvirtuala&library chanrobles virtual la& library The defendant!appellant does not assign as error the fact that he &as declared a habitual delin)uent and imposed the corresponding additional penalty by the trial court. 1aving pleaded guilty of the crime of frustrated theft &ith &hich he is charged in the information, and having admitted thereby only the facts alleged therein, &hich facts are insufficient to prove the e*istence of habitual delin)uency because neither the dates of the former convictions nor those of the commission of the crimes of &hich he &as convicted are specified in said information, the additional penalty prescribed for habitual delin)uency cannot be imposed upon him and, therefore, the court a quo committed an error of la& in declaring the

defendant!appellant a habitual delin)uent. .(eople vs.2antiago, %% (hil., 3++4 (eople vs. De la Cru5, 6. '. 7o. ""-8+, promulgated February -, ,$",, not reported4 (eople vs. 9entura, %+ (hil., ,4 (aguntalan vs. Director of (risons, %- (hil., ,/#4 (eople vs. orales, +, (hil., 3334 (eople vs. Artigas, 6. '. 7o. /"$#,, promulgated 7ovember 3-, ,$"% :+3 (hil., $-3;4 (eople vs. De la 'ama, 6. '. 7o. /"-//, promulgated 7ovember 3-, ,$"% :+3 (hil., $-3;4 (eople vs. 9enus, p. /"%,ante.0chanrobles virtual la& library <herefore, the appealed sentence is reversed in so far as it declares the accused a habitual delin)uent and imposes the corresponding additional penalty upon him, and it is affirmed in all other respects, &ith the costs of both instances to the appellant. 2o ordered.chanroblesvirtuala&library chanrobles virtual la& library Avancea !. ". Abad Santos #mperial Dia$ and Laurel "". concur.

You might also like