Home of ChanRobles Virtual Law Library

PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

EN BANC

[G.R. No. 40871. November 10, 1934. ]

THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. CELERINO COLOCAR, Defendant-Appellant.

Raul T. Leuterio for Appellant.

Solicitor-General Hilado for Appellee.

SYLLABUS


1. CRIMINAL LAW; ARSON; RECIDIVISM. — It was proved at the trial that the defendant was convicted of robbery on November 28, 1916, and was sentenced to suffer three years, six months, and twenty-one days of presidio correccional and to indemnify the offended party in the sum of P100, and that on appeal to this court he was sentenced on October 6, 1917 to suffer three years, six months, and twenty days of presidio correccional and to indemnify the offended party in the sum of P100. Robbery and arson are both included in Title X of the Revised Penal Code, and they were included in the same title in the Penal Code, both being crimes against property. The accused was therefore a recidivist, because at the time of his trial in the present case he had been previously convicted by final judgment of another crime embraced in the same title of the Revised Penal Code.

2. ID.; ID.; ID. — It is suggested that the former conviction of the accused, which took place sixteen years prior to the trial of the present case, should not be taken into consideration as an aggravating circumstance. It is true that if the accused had not been prosecuted for robbery within ten years from the date when the crime was committed, it would have prescribed, but he was prosecuted within that period and convicted, and we do not find anything in the law which authorizes us to disregard that fact. Until the Legislature provides otherwise, recidivism must be taken into account as an aggravating circumstance, no matter how many years have intervened.

3. ID.; ID.; HABITUAL DELINQUENCY. — Article 62, No. 5, relating to habitual delinquency, provides that for the purposes of this article a person shall be deemed to be a habitual delinquent, if within a period of ten years from the date of his release or last conviction of the crimes of robo, hurto, estafa, or falsificacion, he is found guilty of any said crimes a third time or oftener.

4. ID.; ID.; ID. — In the provision quoted relating to habitual delinquency the period of ten years is fixed by the law itself, and the penalty for habitual delinquency in the case of the four crimes specified in the law is an additional penalty. This court has held in the case of People v. Melendrez (59 Phil., 154), that in the case of said crimes recidivism is to be taken into account as an aggravating circumstance in fixing the principal penalty, although the prior convictions of the accused make him a habitual delinquent.

5. ID.; ID.; ID.; "REITERACION." — Even if this were a case of reiteracion under No. 10 of article 14 of the Revised Penal Code, as alleged in the information, the present Code does not authorize us to disregard the former conviction, because the second paragraph of the corresponding provision in the Penal Code (article 10, No. 17), providing that this circumstance shall be taken into consideration by the courts according to the circumstances of the offender and the nature and effects of the crime, has not been included in the Revised Penal Code.


D E C I S I O N


VICKERS, J.:


This is an appeal from the following decision of Judge Serviliano Platon in the Court of First Instance of Mindoro:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"Esta acusado Celerino Colocar del delito de incendio cometido, segun la querella enmendada, como sigue:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"‘The undersigned Provincial Fiscal accuses Celerino Colocar of the crime of arson, committed as follows:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"‘That on or about the 2d day of May, 1933, in the municipality of Calapan, Province of Mindoro, Philippine Islands, and within the jurisdiction of this court, the said accused, did wilfully, unlawfully and feloniously set fire to a fish-net and a banca, belonging to Mauricio Ahorro, thereby destroying the said fish-net, valued at three hundred fifty pesos (P350), and partially damaging the banca to the amount of thirty pesos (P30).

"‘Contrary to article 322, paragraph 3, of the Revised Penal Code, and with the aggravating circumstance No. 10 of article 14 of said Code, because the defendant has been previously punished for an offense to which the law attaches a greater penalty.’

"Son hechos probados por la acusacion que, a eso de la una de la madrugada del 2 de mayo de 1933, Pacifico Inato desde la playa vio que se estaba quemando un chinchorro colocado en una banca que estaba en el mar cerca de la playa, inmediatamente con un flashlight alumbro enfocando a la persona que se hallaba en dicha banca quien, asustada pro la luz del flashlight, dio media vuelta, miro en dirrecion a el y reconocio que aquella persona era el acusado, el cual por el susto se echo a correr pasando por la proa de la banca. Pacifico, creyendo que el chinchorro y la banca que se quemaban eran de su comadre se fue hacia dicha banca y al ver que no son de su comadre, y temiendo que se le imputara que fue el quien los quemo, se retiro a su casa. En la misma hora de la una, Estanislao Acha y Francisco Avenilla, remeros y pescadores de Mauricio Ahorro quienes, por orden de este, durmieron en la playa, se despertaron y vieron que se estaba quemando el chinchorro y, al dirigirse ambos a la banca para apagar el fuego, encontraron al acusado que caminaba apresuradamente, procedente de la banca. Acha y Avenilla, despues de haber apagado el fuego, avisaron a Mauricio Ahorro, dueño de dichos chinchorro y banca que se habian quemado.

"No es objeto de discusion ni controversia que la banca fue parcialmente destruida por el fuego como el chinchorro, y el valor de los daños causados a dicha banca y chinchorro se han estimado en P380.

"El acusado niega haber quemado el chinchorro y la banca; que desde las 9.30 de la noche se puso a dormir y no bajo de su casa en toda la noche; que no es cierto que Francisco Avenilla habia dormido en la playa, pues este, en la noche de autos estaba tan borracho que quedo dormido al lado de la casa de Meliton y desde alli fue llevado a su casa a las 10, y a eso de las 5 de la mañana seguia durmiendo aun; que Pacifico Inato en la noche de autos estaba enfermo, pues estaba imposibilitado a caminar por tener sus pies hinchados.

"Esta defensa de coartada interpuesta por el acusado no desvirtua ni enerva las declaraciones terminantes de los testigos de la acusacion que vieron al acusado salir casi corriendo de la banca donde estaba el chinchorro que, como se ha dicho, se habia quemado. El movil que indujo al acusado a quemar el chinchorro como la banca se debe a que Mauricio Ahorro dijo a Eulogio Mendoza que dicho acusado dejaba de ser encargado del chinchorro, hecho que le disgusto tanto que dicho acusado dijo ademas que hasta sus hijos dejarian de ser pescadores de dicho Ahorro.

"El hecho enjuiciado es constitutivo del delito de incendio previsto y penado en el parrafo 3.
Top of Page