People of the Philippine Islands vs. Colocar

Recidivism must be taken into account as an aggravating circumstance no matter how many years have intervened between the prior conviction and the trial of the subsequent offense, provided the prior conviction was by final judgment for another crime embraced in the same title of the Revised Penal Code.

Celerino Colocar had been the encargado of a fish-net belonging to Mauricio Ahorro, a fisherman in Calapan, Mindoro; Ahorro also owned the banca used with the fish-net. Colocar had a prior final conviction for robbery, entered in 1916 and affirmed on appeal in 1917, which later became material to the aggravating circumstance of recidivism under the Revised Penal Code. The prosecution was brought under article 322, paragraph 3, of the Revised Penal Code, which penalizes arson where the damage exceeds P200 but does not exceed P1,000.

Mauricio Ahorro owned a fish-net (chinchorro) and a banca in Calapan, Mindoro. Celerino Colocar had been the encargado of Ahorro's fish-net, but Ahorro told Eulogio Mendoza that Colocar would no longer be in charge; Colocar was displeased and said that even his children would cease to be fishermen of Ahorro.

At about 1:00 a.m. on May 2, 1933, Pacifico Inato, from the beach, saw that a fish-net placed on a banca in the sea near the beach was burning. He immediately used a flashlight to focus on the person in the banca. Startled by the light, the person turned around, looked toward Inato, and was recognized as Colocar, who then ran away, passing by the bow of the banca. Inato, believing the burning fish-net and banca belonged to his comadre, went toward the banca; upon seeing that they were not his comadre's, and fearing that he would be blamed for the burning, he went home.

At the same hour, Estanislao Acha and Francisco Avenilla, rowers and fishermen of Ahorro who, by Ahorro's order, slept on the beach, woke up and saw the fish-net burning. As both went to the banca to extinguish the fire, they found Colocar walking hurriedly from the banca. After putting out the fire, Acha and Avenilla notified Ahorro that his fish-net and banca had burned. The amended information charged that the fish-net was valued at P350 and the banca was partially damaged in the amount of P30. It was undisputed that the banca was partially destroyed by fire and the fish-net was burned, and the damage to both was estimated at P380.

Colocar denied burning the fish-net and banca. He claimed that from 9:30 p.m. he slept and did not go down from his house the whole night. He also claimed that Francisco Avenilla did not sleep on the beach that night because Avenilla was so drunk that he fell asleep beside Meliton's house and was taken home at 10:00 p.m., and was still sleeping at about 5:00 a.m.; and that Pacifico Inato was sick that night, unable to walk because his feet were swollen.

The trial court rejected this alibi, finding that it did not discredit or weaken the categorical testimony of the prosecution witnesses who saw Colocar leaving almost running from the banca where the burning fish-net was. The trial court also found that Colocar's motive was his displeasure at being told he was no longer encargado of the fish-net, which led him to say that even his children would cease to be fishermen of Ahorro. The court concluded that the act constituted arson under article 322, paragraph 3, of the Revised Penal Code and found Colocar guilty beyond reasonable doubt.

• Credibility of Prosecution Witnesses: Appellant argued that the trial court erred in giving full credit to the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses, particularly those of Pacifico Inato and Estanislao Acha.
• Proof of Identity: Appellant argued that the trial court erred in finding that the evidence proved he was the one who set fire to the fish-net and banca of Mauricio Ahorro.
• Guilt and Penalty: Appellant argued that the trial court erred in finding him guilty of the crime charged and in sentencing him to suffer two years, eleven months, and eleven days of prision correccional.

• Recidivism: The People, through the Solicitor-General, maintained in his brief that the aggravating circumstance of recidivism must be considered in fixing the penalty.

• Credibility of Prosecution Witnesses: Whether the trial court erred in giving full credit to the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses, particularly Pacifico Inato and Estanislao Acha.
• Proof of Identity: Whether the evidence proved that appellant Celerino Colocar set fire to the fish-net and banca of Mauricio Ahorro.
• Guilt and Penalty: Whether appellant was properly found guilty of arson under article 322, paragraph 3, of the Revised Penal Code and sentenced to two years, eleven months, and eleven days of prision correccional.
• Recidivism: Whether appellant's prior robbery conviction, sixteen years before trial, should be taken into account as an aggravating circumstance.

• Credibility of Prosecution Witnesses: No. The assigned errors raised only questions of fact depending on credibility, and after reading the testimony, the Court found no reason to disturb the trial judge's findings.
• Proof of Identity: Yes. The prosecution witnesses positively identified appellant at the scene, and his alibi did not overcome their categorical testimony.
• Guilt and Penalty: Yes as to guilt, but the penalty was modified. The offense is punished by prision correccional in its minimum and medium periods, and the Court imposed an indeterminate sentence of not less than six months of arresto mayor and not more than two years, eleven months, and eleven days of prision correccional, with P380 indemnity and subsidiary imprisonment.
• Recidivism: Yes. Recidivism must be taken into account as an aggravating circumstance no matter how many years intervened, because the prior conviction was by final judgment for another crime embraced in the same title of the Revised Penal Code.

• Credibility of Prosecution Witnesses: The errors assigned raised only questions of fact depending on the credibility of witnesses. After reading the testimony, the Court found no reason for disturbing the findings of the trial judge. The defense's alibi—that Colocar slept from 9:30 p.m. and did not leave his house, that Avenilla was drunk and asleep elsewhere, and that Inato was sick with swollen feet—did not discredit or weaken the categorical declarations of the prosecution witnesses who saw the accused leaving almost running from the banca where the fish-net was burning. The trial court's assessment of credibility was therefore sustained.
• Proof of Identity: Pacifico Inato testified that at about 1:00 a.m. on May 2, 1933, he saw the fish-net burning on a banca, focused his flashlight on the person in the banca, and recognized the accused, who then fled. Estanislao Acha and Francisco Avenilla, who woke up and went to extinguish the fire, found the accused walking hurriedly from the banca. These positive identifications, coupled with the rejection of the alibi, established that Colocar set the fire. The Court found no reason to disturb the trial court's factual finding.
• Guilt and Penalty: The act constituted arson under article 322, paragraph 3, of the Revised Penal Code, the damage being more than P200 but not more than P1,000, punishable by prision correccional in its minimum and medium periods. The trial judge imposed the minimum of the maximum degree, but the decision did not state what aggravating circumstance was taken into account. The evidence showed that the defendant took advantage of nighttime. The Court modified the penalty to an indeterminate sentence of not less than six months of arresto mayor and not more than two years, eleven months, and eleven days of prision correccional, and ordered indemnity of P380 with subsidiary imprisonment. The conviction itself was affirmed.
• Recidivism: The information alleged aggravating circumstance No. 10 of article 14 of the Revised Penal Code (reiteracion) because the defendant had been previously punished for an offense to which the law attaches a greater penalty. The evidence showed that the defendant was convicted of robbery on November 28, 1916, sentenced to three years, six months, and twenty-one days of presidio correccional and to indemnify the offended party in P100; on appeal, the Supreme Court on October 6, 1917 sentenced him to three years, six months, and twenty days of presidio correccional and to indemnify the offended party in P100. Robbery and arson are both included in Title X of the Revised Penal Code, both being crimes against property. The accused was therefore a recidivist because at the time of his trial he had been previously convicted by final judgment of another crime embraced in the same title. The Solicitor-General argued that recidivism must be considered. The Court considered whether the 16-year interval should prevent it. Article 89 provides for total extinction of criminal liability, and article 90 provides prescription periods; if the accused had not been prosecuted for robbery within ten years from its commission, it would have prescribed, but he was prosecuted within that period and convicted, and nothing in law authorizes disregarding that fact. Until the Legislature provides otherwise, recidivism must be taken into account no matter how many years intervened. The Spanish Penal Code, as amended by Royal Decree of November 14, 1925, expressly provides that effects of recidivism cease when the time necessary for prescription of the crime has elapsed, but that amendment was not adopted in the Revised Penal Code. Article 62, No. 5, on habitual delinquency, fixes a ten-year period for specified crimes and imposes an additional penalty; by analogy, it does not apply. People vs. Melendrez held that recidivism is taken into account as an aggravating circumstance in fixing the principal penalty although prior convictions make the accused a habitual delinquent. Finally, even if the case were one of reiteracion under No. 10, the Revised Penal Code does not authorize disregarding the former conviction because the second paragraph of the corresponding Penal Code provision (article 10, No. 17), which allowed courts to consider the circumstances of the offender and the nature and effects of the crime, was not included in the Revised Penal Code.

• Recidivism — Recidivism is an aggravating circumstance under the Revised Penal Code when the accused, at the time of his trial, has been previously convicted by final judgment of another crime embraced in the same title of the Code. The Court applied it to Colocar, whose prior robbery conviction, though sixteen years earlier, was still considered because he had been prosecuted and convicted within the prescriptive period and the law does not authorize disregarding that fact.
• Alibi — Alibi is a weak defense that cannot prevail over the positive and categorical identification of the accused by prosecution witnesses. The Court held that Colocar's alibi did not discredit the witnesses who saw him leaving the burning banca.
• Credibility findings on appeal — Findings of the trial court on the credibility of witnesses are accorded respect and will not be disturbed on appeal absent a showing that the trial judge misapprehended the facts. The Court found no reason to depart from the trial court's assessment.
• Nocturnity — Nighttime may be considered as an aggravating circumstance where it was taken advantage of by the offender. The Court noted that the evidence showed the defendant took advantage of nighttime to set fire to the fish-net and banca.
• Reiteracion — Even if the information alleged reiteracion under article 14, No. 10, of the Revised Penal Code, the Code does not authorize disregarding a prior conviction because the second paragraph of the corresponding old Penal Code provision, which allowed courts to consider the offender's circumstances and the nature and effects of the crime, was not carried over into the Revised Penal Code.

• "The errors assigned raise only questions of fact depending on the credibility of the witnesses, and after reading their testimony, we find no reason for disturbing the findings of the trial judge." — This passage states the standard of review and the Court's deference to the trial court's credibility findings, which disposed of the appellant's first two assignments of error.
• "Until the Legislature provides otherwise, recidivism must be taken into account as an aggravating circumstance, no matter how many years have intervened." — This is the core ratio decidendi on recidivism, rejecting the argument that a sixteen-year interval barred its consideration.
• "The accused was therefore a recidivist, because at the time of his trial in the present case he had been previously convicted by final judgment of another crime embraced in the same title of the Revised Penal Code." — This passage defines and applies recidivism to Colocar's prior robbery conviction.
• "The defendant is sentenced to suffer an indeterminate sentence of not leas than six months of arresto mayor and not more than two years, eleven months, and eleven days of prision correccional, and to indemnify the offended party in the sum of P380, with the corresponding subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency." — This is the dispositive penalty imposed by the Court after modifying the trial court's sentence.

• People vs. Melendrez, 59 Phil. 154 — Cited by the Court for the rule that in cases of robo, hurto, estafa, or falsificacion, recidivism is to be taken into account as an aggravating circumstance in fixing the principal penalty, although the prior convictions make the accused a habitual delinquent. The Court used it to reject the analogy from the habitual-delinquency provision.

• Article 322, paragraph 3, Revised Penal Code — Punishes arson where the damage is more than P200 but not more than P1,000 with prision correccional in its minimum and medium periods. Applied because the fish-net and banca damage was estimated at P380.
• Article 14, No. 10, Revised Penal Code — Aggravating circumstance of reiteracion alleged in the amended information. The Court discussed it and held that even if the case were one of reiteracion, the former conviction could not be disregarded.
• Article 89, Revised Penal Code — Criminal liability is totally extinguished by death, service of sentence, amnesty, absolute pardon, prescription of the crime, prescription of the penalty, and marriage of the offended woman under article 344. Cited in rejecting the argument that the old conviction should be ignored.
• Article 90, Revised Penal Code — Prescription of crimes: crimes punishable by correctional penalty prescribe in ten years; when the penalty is compound, the highest penalty is the basis. Cited to show that the robbery conviction had not prescribed because prosecution occurred within the period.
• Article 62, No. 5, Revised Penal Code — Habitual delinquency: ten-year period from release or last conviction for robo, hurto, estafa, or falsificacion; additional penalty. Cited to reject the analogy that a prior conviction should not be considered after ten years.
• Article 10, No. 17, old Penal Code — Its second paragraph, allowing courts to consider the circumstances of the offender and the nature and effects of the crime, was not included in the Revised Penal Code. Cited in the Court's final observation on reiteracion.
• Royal Decree of November 14, 1925 (Spanish Penal Code amendment) — Provided that the effects of recidivism as an aggravating circumstance cease when the time necessary for prescription of the crime has elapsed. The Court noted it was not adopted in the Revised Penal Code.

Justices Street, Hull, Butte, Goddard, and Diaz concurred.

• Chief Justice Avanceña — Dissented from the majority's holding that recidivism is an aggravating circumstance. He emphasized that sixteen years intervened between the previous conviction and the trial. Article 14, subsections 9 and 10, of the Revised Penal Code reproduce article 10, subsections 17 and 18, of the old Penal Code, which were taken from the Spanish Penal Code in force prior to 1925. A Spanish Supreme Court decision of April 28, 1896, interpreting previous conviction, held that the aggravating circumstance should not be considered because it increases the penalty for the new crime based on a moral and legal relation showing criminal propensities, and a long intervening period cuts or interrupts that relation. The 1925 Royal Decree amended the Spanish provision to provide that recidivism and previous conviction shall not be taken into consideration where the time necessary for prescription of the offense has intervened between the previous conviction and the last crime. Although not adopted in the Revised Penal Code, the same criterion appears in article 62, subsection 5, which fixes not more than ten years for habitual delinquency. In the absence of an express provision, at least the doctrine is that ten years is sufficient to interrupt and cut the relation between both crimes. Justices Malcolm, Villa-Real, Abad Santos, and Imperial concurred.