Republic of the Philippines

SUPREME COURT
Manila
EN BANC
G.R. No. L-46896 January 15, 1940
EL PUEBLO DE FILIPINAS, querellante-apelado,
vs.
PABLO SAN JUAN y MONTEROSA, acusado-apelante.
D. Matias E. Vergara en representacion del apelante.
El Procurador General Sr. Ozaeta y el Procurador General Auxiliar Sr. Torres en
representacion del Gobierno.
VILLA-REAL, J.:
1he defendanL ablo San !uan and MonLerosa lL was ln Lhe Munlclpal CourL of Manlla of Lhe crlme of
LhefL of flve (3) sacks of rlce worLh 32. 1rlal, was senLenced Lo suffer a ma[or penalLy of arresL for slx
monLhs and Lo lndemnlfy Lhe offended parLy ln Lhe sald sum of 32. Pe was also senLenced Lo suffer an
addlLlonal penalLy of seven years, four monLhs and one day ln prlson for belng more hablLual offender,
and Lo pay Lhe cosLs. Cn appeal Lo Lhe CourL of llrsL lnsLance of Manlla, was found gullLy of Lhe crlme of
whlch he was charged and senLenced Lo Lhe same penalLy. 8efore Lhls CourL, on appeal, ralses Lhe
followlng alleged errors as commlLLed by Lhe lower courL ln lLs [udgmenL, Lo wlL:
1. That the penalty imposed upon the accused-appellant for the crime of theft alleged in
the information should have been at most, arresto mayor in its medium degree that if
from two months and one day to four months;
2. That the additional penalty of seven years, four months and one day of prision mayor
for habitual delinquency imposed by the Municipal Court and as affirmed by the Court of
First Instance of Manila is illegal.
lnLendlng by Lhe appellanL LhaL, ln Lhe absence of evldence LhaL Lhe offense has aLLended any mlLlgaLlng
or aggravaLlng clrcumsLances, Lhe penalLy of arresL for Lhe full exLenL provlded for ln ArLlcle 39, case 3. ,
Lhe 8evlsed enal Code, or ls one monLh and one day Lo slx monLhs 'lmprlsonmenL greaLer, musL be
lmposed ln lLs medlum degree or Lwo monLhs and one day Lo four monLhs' lmprlsonmenL greaLer,
lnsLead of Lhe hlghesL of LhaL senLence, whlch has lmposed lower courL. Slnce Lhe defendanL and
appellanL's hablLual offender, whlch presupposes LhaL recldlvlsm ls an aggravaLlng clrcumsLance
modlfylng crlmlnal llablllLy, lL should be appreclaLed LhaL Lhe concurrence of clrcumsLances so Lhe
repeaLed punlshmenL provlded by Lhe law should be lmposed ln lLs maxlmum degree. noL havlng
aLLended any mlLlgaLlng clrcumsLance LhaL Lhe offseL, Lhe prlnclpal penalLy lmposed by Lhe Lrlal courL,
whlch ls Lhe sub[ecL of Lhls appeal, Lhey are conslsLenL wlLh Lhe law.
You to be maintained also by the appellant in his second alleged error pointing out that the
additional penalty of seven years, four months and one day of imprisonment, imposed by the
Municipal Court of Manila for being such a habitual criminal defendant and appellant is contrary
to law since the Municipal Court of Manila had no jurisdiction to impose such additional
punishment. In the case of the People of the Philippines against World Liberato, R. G. No.
46531, this Court in a judgment issued on October 18, 1939, said:

We have stated in the case of "The People of the Philippines against Acha and Jesus Rivera" (GR
No. 46714) that the jurisdiction of the Municipal Court of Manila, in the case of theft, is
determined, not by grief, but by the amount as stolen and, when this does not exceed P200, this
court has jurisdiction regardless of the penalty prescribed for the offense.

Accordlng Lo LhaL [udgmenL, Lhe facL LhaL Lhe defendanL and appellanL's hablLual offender, a condlLlon
LhaL makes hlm llable Lo a furLher penalLy noL dlsquallfy Lhe Manlla Munlclpal CourL Lo hear a case
alleglng ln such condlLlon, provlded when Lhe offense of whlch he ls accused of LhefL and ls Lhe value of
Lhe Lhlng sLolen does noL exceed 200.
Intending also by the defendant and appellant that his participation in the commission of the
crime of theft, which he had been charged a second time and for which he had been convicted,
was not in concept cars but simply an accessory, and therefore such second conviction can not,
with the sentence in the present case, the concept of crime intregrar usual. In the case of the
People of the Philippines against Manuel Abuyen and Elais (52 Phil., 749), this Court stated that
"... the provisions of Law No. 3397 on habitual criminal offenses apply to it listed, provided for
and punishable under the Penal Code not only in degree but also in the accomplished of
frustrated and attempted. "

8y Lhe above conslderaLlons, and noL flndlng any error ln Lhe [udgmenL appealed, conflrm lL ln lLs
enLlreLy wlLh cosLs agalnsL Lhe appellanL.
l1 lS SC C8uL8Lu.
Avancena, res, lmperlal, ulaz, Laurel and Concepclon, MM., Concur.