PEOPLE V 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 are 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.