PEOPLE v. BERNAL Elias were recovered.
Bernal, the accused, was charged with the crime of
October 31, 1935 | Imperial, J. | Multiple offenses/crimes
PLAINTIFF AND APPELLEE: People of the Philippine Islands
DEFENDANT AND APPELLANT: Canuti Bernal
SUMMARY: Bernal was convicted by the trial court for theft. Prior to this
case, he was already convicted thrice for the same crime. He assails the
judgment of the trial court for imposing the additional penalty for the 4th
conviction of a habitual delinquent. He contends that the crime in his 3rd
conviction was committed prior to the crime of theft being charged at the case at
bar, so only 2 prior convictions must be taken into account in fixing the
additional penalty in his present sentence. The court agreed with his contention.
In the deliberation of the case, the justices argued whether the aggravating
circumstance of recidivism and the additional penalty therefrom must be applied
separately when the accused is found to be a habitual delinquent. The majority
ruled that regardless of the additional penalty to be imposed in view of habitual
delinquency, recidivism must also be taken into account because the two do not
have the same elements as observed in their respective definitions.
DOCTRINE:
Art. 62, par. 5 – Habitual delinquency shall have the ff effects:
(a) Upon the 3rd conviction, the culprit shall be sentenced to the penalty
provided by law for the last crime of which he be found guilty and to
the additional penalty of prision correccional in its medium and
maximum periods;
(b) Upon the 4th conviction, the culprit shall be sentenced to the penalty
provided for the last crime of which he be found guilty and to the
additional penalty of prision mayor in its maximum and medium
periods;
(c) xxx
a person shall be deemed to be habitual delinquent, if within a period
of 10 years from the date of his release or last conviction of the crimes
of robbery, theft, estafa, or falsification, he is found guilty of any of
said criems a 3rd time or oftener. (Note: serious & less serious physical
injuries are not yet included as cited in the case)
Art. 14, par. 9 – Recidivism is committed by a person who, at the time of his
trial for one crime, shall have been previously convicted by final judgment of
another crime embraced in the same title of the Code.
Art. 14, par. 10 – Reiteration or habituality is committed when the offender has
been previously punished for an offense to which the law attaches at an equal or
greter penalty or for two or more crimes to which it attaches a ligher penalty.
FACTS:
1. Bernal took 3 game-cocks belonging to Elias Piamonte valued at P50 and 3
other roosters from Mariano de Leon valued at P3. 2 of the game-cocks of
theft. It was established that he had been convicted thrice of the same crime
of theft prior to the case at bar. 1st offense: April 25, 1935 à
2nd offense: June 24, 1935 à 3rd offense: October 19, 1935
2. In the Information, it was alleged that the aggravating circumstances of
nocturnity and habitual delinquency are present. Bernal pleaded not guilty.
3. The trial court found him guilty, sentencing him to 4 mos and 1 day of
arresto mayor, to return the 3 stolen roosters to Mariano de Leon or to
indemnify the latter for 3 pesos. As a habitual delinquent, Bernal was
sentenced to the additional penalty of 7 years of prision mayor.
4. Bernal assigns 1 error in the judgment: finding him a habitual delinquent
under subsection (b) under par. 5 of Art. 62 of the RPC, which provides for
the additional penalty upon the 4th conviction of the culprit. He contends
that he has no more than 2 prior convictions, the 3rd being the one at bar. He
elaborates that the crime of theft on October 19 took place after the
commission of the offense at bar (committed on October 11). Thus, it
should not be counted. It then follows that the applicable provision is
subsection (a) of the same paragraph, which assigns the additional
penalty upon the 3rd conviction.
ISSUE/s:
1. WoN the 3rd conviction, having taken place after the commission of the last
offense (present case), should be included in the determination of additional
penalty as a habitual delinquent – NO
2. WoN the aggravating circumstance of recidivism should be separately taken
into account in fixing penalties when the accused is alleged and proved to
be a habitual delinquent – YES
RULING: CA MODIFIED the penalty. Accused is found guilty of theft and
sentenced to 6 mos and 1 day of prision correccional, to return to the offended
parties the stolen and unrecovered roosters or in default, indemnify Elias with P20
and Mariano with P3, with subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency.
RATIO:
1. The 3rd conviction should not be considered in determining habitual
delinquency and additional penalty because it took place after the
commission of the last offense, which is currently being charged. It is
necessary that the crime previously committed be prior to the
commission if the offense with which the accused is charged a 3rd time
or oftener.
2. Jurisprudence has held that aggravating circumstance of recidivism should
be taken into consideration, notwithstanding the allegation and proof of
habitual delinquency. It is wrong to assume that recidivism is twice taken
into account when the accused is declared a habitual delinquent because
Page 1 of 2
 recidivism as an aggravating circumstance modifying criminal liability
is not an inherent or integral element of habitual delinquency. Looking
at the definitions of a habitual delinquent and recidivism in the RPC,
recidivism as an aggravating circumstance is not a factor or element
forming part of habitual delinquency. Their elements are different.

ABAD SANTOS, J., concurring and dissenting opinion:

- Agrees that the accused is guilty of theft but disagrees with imposing the
additional penalty for the aggravating circumstance of recidivism
- Previous convictions constitute an essential element of the aggravated
offense in habitual delinquency. To convict the accused as a habitual
delinquent, the previous convictions, like any qualifying circumstance, must
be alleged and proved. The 2nd conviction, which generally makes up the
aggravating circumstance of recidivism, is necessarily included in the
number of convictions required to establish habitual delinquency. Thus,
the aggravating circumstance of recidivism must not be taken into
consideration in the imposition of penalty for the crime which Bernal is
found guilty.

Page 2 of 2