Saturday, February 04, 2012

People vs. Macbul

Facts: Appellant pleaded guilty for information of theft of 2 sacks of paper amounting to Php 10. He was convicted and sentenced for penalties prescribed for theft and that for habitual delinquency. This is because he has been convicted of the same crime twice, in 1928 and in 1942. The trial court also took into consideration 2 mitigating circumstances which a re voluntary surrender and extreme poverty. However, the trial court also took into account the aggravating circumstance of recidivism.

Issue: Whether or not recidivism should have been taken into account, when in fact it is inherent in habitual delinquency

Held: That issue raised by appellant is not to be considered at all since what should be considered is whether he actually falls under habitual delinquent. It is to be noted that the crimes were committed 14 years apart. This is beyond the 10 year limit. This means that it is only the 1942 crime which should be considered. Thus, he is not to be considered as a habitual delinquent. The Court affirmed the consideration of the mitigating circumstance of extreme poverty as it is obvious that the appellant committed the crime by reason of necessity having several minor children to feed and selling the paper for 2.50. The Court still recognizes the importance of life over property. The court affirmed the principal penalty and removed the additional penalty.

Digg Google Bookmarks reddit Mixx StumbleUpon Technorati Yahoo! Buzz DesignFloat Delicious BlinkList Furl

0 comments: on "People vs. Macbul"

Post a Comment