People vs. Morales

Habitual delinquency is not established when the information fails to allege the date of the accused's last conviction or release and when multiple prior convictions rendered on the same day are counted as only one conviction.

Anselmo Morales was charged with estafa for falsely representing himself as a physician, diagnosing the ailment of Remedios Suarez, and obtaining P3 from her to purchase medicine, which he instead appropriated to his own use. The information also alleged that Morales was a habitual delinquent under Article 62 of the Revised Penal Code, claiming he had been convicted five times of estafa by final judgments, with the current offense committed within ten years of his last conviction. Upon arraignment, Morales pleaded guilty to the charge. The trial court sentenced him to two months and one day of arresto mayor for the estafa, indemnification of P3 to the offended party, and costs, plus an additional penalty of ten years of prision mayor for habitual delinquency. On appeal, counsel de oficio contested only the additional penalty for habitual delinquency, arguing that the guilty plea did not amount to an admission of habitual delinquency. The record revealed that the appellant's five previous convictions all took place on the same day.

• Plea of Guilt and Habitual Delinquency: Appellant contended that his plea of guilt to the crime charged did not amount to an admission that he was a habitual delinquent.

• Habitual Delinquency: Whether the appellant's plea of guilty admitted his status as a habitual delinquent and whether the information sufficiently alleged the elements of habitual delinquency.

• Habitual Delinquency: No. The appellant cannot be deemed a habitual delinquent because the information failed to allege the date of his last conviction or release, and his five previous convictions on the same day count as only one conviction.

• Habitual Delinquency: While a plea of guilt admits all material allegations in the information, the information in this case failed to allege the date of the appellant's last conviction or release. It merely averred a conclusion of fact that the crime was committed within ten years of his last conviction. Under the law, habitual delinquency requires that within ten years of release or last conviction, the accused is found guilty of the offense a third time or oftener; the material date is the conviction for the subsequent offense, not its commission. Furthermore, the record showed that the appellant's five previous convictions occurred on the same day. Pursuant to established jurisprudence, multiple convictions on the same day count as only one conviction. Thus, the appellant could not be deemed a habitual delinquent, but only a recidivist. The penalty for estafa under Article 315, subsection 2(a) of the Revised Penal Code is arresto mayor in its medium and maximum periods. The aggravating circumstance of recidivism was offset by the mitigating circumstance of the plea of guilty, resulting in the imposition of the penalty in its medium degree.

• Plea of Guilt Admits Material Allegations — A plea of guilt admits all the material allegations in the information, including that of habitual delinquency, provided the information sufficiently alleges the necessary facts.
• Convictions on the Same Day Count as One — Multiple convictions rendered on the same day are considered as only one conviction for the purpose of determining habitual delinquency or recidivism.
• Material Date for Habitual Delinquency — For habitual delinquency, the material date is the date of conviction for the subsequent offense, not the date of its commission, in relation to the date of the accused's release or last conviction.

• "While it is well settled that a plea of guilt admits all the material allegations in the information, including that of habitual delinquency, in the case before us the information failed to allege the date of appellant's last conviction or release." — This passage clarifies that a plea of guilt only admits sufficiently pleaded material facts, not mere conclusions of law or fact.
• "It is thus clear that what is material is not the date of commission of the subsequent offense, but that of his conviction thereof, in relation to the date of his release or last conviction." — This establishes the rule for computing the period for habitual delinquency under the Revised Penal Code.

• People vs. Siojo, 57 Phil. 1005 — Cited to show that an admission of previous convictions is insufficient without showing the judgment was rendered within ten years of the last conviction or release.
• People vs. Kaw Liong and Yu Siong, 57 Phil. 839; People vs. Santiago, 55 Phil. 266; People vs. De la Cruz; People vs. Ventura, 56 Phil. 1 — Cited as authority for the rule that five convictions occurring on the same day should be considered as only one conviction.

• Article 62, Revised Penal Code — Defines habitual delinquency and the conditions under which an accused is deemed a habitual delinquent, specifically paragraph 5(c) regarding estafa.
• Article 315, subsection 2(a), Revised Penal Code — Defines the penalty for estafa committed by false pretenses, prescribing arresto mayor in its medium and maximum periods.

Avanceña, C.J., Street, Hull, and Vickers, JJ., concur.