Republic of the Philippines SUPREME COURT Manila

EN BANC
GR No. L-47364 November 14, 1940
THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff and appellee,
vs.. PASTOR AND OTHER LACSAMANA, defendants. RUPERTO and JOAQUIN LLANERA
GREGORIO,appellants.
D. Celedonio P. Gloria in reprensentacion for appellants.
The Assistant General Procurdor Mr. Ibaez and Mr. Acting Assistant Attorney Kapunan, Jr. on
behalf of the government.
IMPERIAL, J .:
Rupert Gregory ( alias Norberto Gregorio) and Joaquin ( aka Joaquin liner), together with Pastor
Lacsamana, Joaquin Reyes and Florentina de la Cruz, were charged in the Court of First Instance of
Pampanga to have committed the offense of theft by having seized on 4 August 1939, against the
will of its owner, personal property of Tomas Lorenzo Poy, the value of P52, penetrating inside of
said Lorenzo, located in the district of San Jose, city of Angeles, Pampanga Province, and breaking
the door of it, and were sentenced, the first five years of prison and correctional additional penalty of
ten years and one day of imprisonment, and, second, to three years and six months in prison, and
both jointly and severally indemnify Poy Tomas Lorenzo in the amount of P52 and proportionate
payment of the costs. Both defendants appealed the judgment was dictated so.
Both appellants voluntarily pleaded guilty of theft alleged in the complaint and in this instance the
public defender defends them not dispute the facts of the offense. For his guilty plea the appellants
have admitted all material allegations of the complaint, including the usual crime in connection with
Rupert Gregory.
Defense argues that the aggravating nocturnal and use of motor vehicle does not need to be
considered against the appellants. Since these two aggravating circumstances alleged in the
complaint and the appellants have voluntarily admitted to plead guilty, the claim is unsustainable and
the same Debem estimated by winning the penalty prescribed by law. The evidence presented at the
trial of the co-accused Pastor Lacsamana, Joaquina and Florentina Reyes de la Cruz, in which case
the defense to argue that the aggravating above should not be taken into account, can not be
considered in determining the responsibility of appellants or to impose the penalty prescribed.
According to the allegations of the complaint and the documentary evidence that the prosecution
presented immediately after pleading guilty Appellant Gregory Rupert, crime is the seventh trial has
previously committed for five times and was convicted on charges of theft and once for theft, having
been released last on February 13, 1939. Is unfounded pretension of the appellant to the effect that
it is not habitual criminal within the meaning of Article 62, No. 5 (c) of the Revised Penal Code by the
fact that his last conviction took place on August 12, 1927 or more ten years before the crime
happened on trial Aug. 4, 1939. The last paragraph of Article 62 considers the individual offender
that within ten years from the date that has been released or has been convicted for the last time of
the offense of robbery, theft, fraud or forgery, has been found guilty of any such offense for the third
or more times and is mentioned appellant in this case because it was released within ten years
immediately preceding his last conviction for the crime prosecuted.
Neither has merit defense's claim that the appellant Ruperto Gregorio or could be declared habitual
offender because during the ten years prior to February 13, 1939, when it was released the last time,
did not commit any crime and that by he committed and was convicted on August 12, 1927 had been
sentenced to fifteen additional years for being equally habitual offender. The last paragraph of Article
62 of the Revised Penal Code does not exempt from the usual crime or additional punishment Reao
that is in such conditions, sufficient to be declared a habitual offender and additional punishment
creditor appointed, who is found guilty of any of the above offenses for the third or more times and
his last conviction or freedom have taken place ten years immediately before. The law does not
exempt from the usual crime or additional punishment when between crimes committed before had
mediated more than ten years or by either of them the defendant had been sentenced to fifteen
years in the same the defendant had been sentenced to fifteen years imprisonment as additional
punishment.
The crime committed by the appellants is to housebreaking uninhabited for failure alleged in the
complaint that the house was inhabited (People v. Asa Moro, RG No. 39711, October 31, 1933), and
is punishable by the penultimate paragraph Article 302 of the Revised Penal Code, as has been
amended by Act No. 417 of the Commonwealth, with more arrests in its maximum degree to prision
correctional in its minimum degree to be P52 the value of what was stolen. In the commission of the
offense must be assessed for night aggravating circumstances and motor vehicle use and, in
connection with Rupert Gregory, the recidivism aggravating and repeated addition, and one of them
must be offset by the mitigating plea for what punishment should be imposed composed earlier
indicated in maximum degree with a duration of one year, eight months and one day to two years
and four months. A Rupert Gregory also be imposed on the additional penalty of twelve years
imprisonment for being this the seventh conviction, according to those stated in article 62, No. 5 (c)
of the Revised Penal Code. As Joaquin Lanera, no offender should be imposed the indeterminate
sentence of four months' imprisonment exceeding one year, eight months and one day of prision
correctional in accordance with Law No. 4103, as amended by Law No. 4225.
With modification of the judgment under appeal, the appellants stated Rupert Gregory
( alias Norberto Gregorio) and Joaquin Llanera ( alias Joaquin Linera) guilty of burglary and
sentenced uninhabited, at first, to one year, eight months and one day in prison and correctional
additional twelve years imprisonment and, second, to the indeterminate sentence of four months'
imprisonment exceeding one year, eight months and one day of prision correctional both jointly and
severally indemnify Tomas Poy Lorenzo in the amount of P52 and proportionate payment of the
costs of both instances. In the event of insolvency of compensation, Joaquin Llanera suffer the
corresponding subsidiary imprisonment. IT IS SO ORDERED.
Avancea, CJ, Diaz, Laurel and Horrilleno, MM., concur.