G.R. No.
L-45284 December 29, 1936
THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS, plaintiff-appellee,
vs.
FRANCISCO DE LA CRUZ, ET AL., defendants.
FRANCISCO DE LA CRUZ, appellant.
Marciano Sayoc for appellant.
Undersecretary of Justice Melencio for appellee.
AVANCEÑA, C.J.:
This case was prosecuted upon the following information:
That on or about the 30th day of May, 1936, in the City of Manila, Philippine Islands, the said
accused Francisco de la Cruz, Fernando Legaspi and three other persons whose identities are still
unknown, confederating together and helping one another, did then and there willfully, unlawfully
and feloniously, and with intent of gain, attack, assault and use personal violence upon one Yu Wan,
by then and there giving him blows with his fist on the face and other parts of the body, thereby
inflicting upon him physical injuries which have required and will require medical attendance for a
period of more than one but less than nine days and have prevented and will prevent the said Yu
Wan from engaging in his customary labor for the same period of time; and afterwards took, stole
and carried away with him without the consent of the owner thereof the following personal property,
to wit:
Twenty-six (P26) pesos in cash, consisting of different denominations ................ P26.00
belonging to said Yu Wan, to the damage and prejudice of the said owner in the said sum of P26,
Philippine currency.
That the said accused Francisco de la Cruz is a habitual delinquent under the provisions of
the Revised Penal Code, he having been previously convicted once of the crime of theft and
twice of the crime of estafa, by virtue of final judgments rendered by competent courts,
having been last convicted on July 24, 1933.
Upon arraignment, the accused pleaded not guilty.
During the trial and after two witnesses for the prosecution had testified, the accused withdrew their
plea of not guilty, substituting it by that of guilty. The court sentenced Francisco de la Cruz to six
months and one day of prision correccional and, considering him a habitual delinquent, sentenced
him furthermore to the additional penalty of six years and one day of prision mayor. The other
accused Fernando Legaspi was sentenced to ten months of prision correccional. Francisco de la
Cruz appealed for this sentence.
The facts charged constitute the crime of robbery defined in article 294 of the Revised Penal Code
and punished by the penalty of prision correccional to prision mayor in its medium period.
The allegations of the information with respect to the appellant Francisco de la Cruz are not
sufficient to consider him a habitual delinquent (People vs. Venus, p. 435, ante). However, the facts
alleged in this respect constitute the aggravating circumstance of recidivism. [Link]
On the other hand, the appellant's plea of guilty does not constitute a mitigating circumstance under
article 13, subsection 7, of the Revised Penal Code, which requires that this plea be spontaneous
and that it be made prior to the presentation of evidence by the prosecution. The confession of guilt,
although subsequent to the consummation of the crime and entirely alien to its development,
constitutes a cause for the mitigation of the penalty, not because it is a circumstance modifying
criminal responsibility already incurred and in the evolution of which it has not intervened absolutely,
but because, as an act of repentance and respect for the law, it indicates a moral disposition in the
accused favorable to his reform. It is clear that these benefits are not deserved by the accused who
submits to the law only after the presentation of some evidence for the prosecution, believing that in
the end the trial will result in his conviction by virtue thereof.
Wherefore, eliminating the additional penalty by reason of habitual delinquency, considering the
presence of an aggravating circumstance in the commission of the crime without any mitigating
circumstance, and applying the Indeterminate Sentence Law, the appellant is sentenced to the
penalty of from six months of arresto mayor, as minimum, to six years, ten months and one day
of prision mayor, as maximum, affirming the appealed sentence in all other respects, with the costs.
So ordered.
Villa-Real, Abad Santos, Imperial, Diaz, Laurel, and Concepcion, JJ., concur.
