Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 207 views

    People V Macbul

    Uploaded by

    Annievin Hawk
    Macbul pleaded guilty to theft of two sacks of paper valued at P10. He had two prior convictions for theft from 1928 and 1942. The trial court found poverty and guilty plea as mitigating circumstances but also considered his prior convictions as an aggravating circumstance. The Supreme Court found that his first conviction was more than 10 years prior so he could not be considered a habitual delinquent. It affirmed the consideration of extreme poverty as a mitigating circumstance given his need to feed his children. It upheld the principal penalty but removed the additional penalty for habitual delinquency.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    People V Macbul

    Uploaded by

    Annievin Hawk
    207 views1 page
    Macbul pleaded guilty to theft of two sacks of paper valued at P10. He had two prior convictions for theft from 1928 and 1942. The trial court found poverty and guilty plea as mitigating circumstances but also considered his prior convictions as an aggravating circumstance. The Supreme Court found that his first conviction was more than 10 years prior so he could not be considered a habitual delinquent. It affirmed the consideration of extreme poverty as a mitigating circumstance given his need to feed his children. It upheld the principal penalty but removed the additional penalty for habitual delinquency.

    Original Description:

    Case digest

    Original Title

    People v Macbul

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Macbul pleaded guilty to theft of two sacks of paper valued at P10. He had two prior convictions for theft from 1928 and 1942. The trial court found poverty and guilty plea as mitigating circumstances but also considered his prior convictions as an aggravating circumstance. The Supreme Court found that his first conviction was more than 10 years prior so he could not be considered a habitual delinquent. It affirmed the consideration of extreme poverty as a mitigating circumstance given his need to feed his children. It upheld the principal penalty but removed the additional penalty for habitual delinquency.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    207 views1 page

    People V Macbul

    Uploaded by

    Annievin Hawk
    Macbul pleaded guilty to theft of two sacks of paper valued at P10. He had two prior convictions for theft from 1928 and 1942. The trial court found poverty and guilty plea as mitigating circumstances but also considered his prior convictions as an aggravating circumstance. The Supreme Court found that his first conviction was more than 10 years prior so he could not be considered a habitual delinquent. It affirmed the consideration of extreme poverty as a mitigating circumstance given his need to feed his children. It upheld the principal penalty but removed the additional penalty for habitual delinquency.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 1

    People v Macbul, GR. NO.

    L-48976

    Facts:

    Macbul pleaded guilty for theft of two sacks of papers valued at P10 belong to the Provincial Government of Sulu. It was
    alleged that he was a habitual delinquent, having been twice convicted of the same crime on November 14, 1928,
    and August 20, 1942. The trial court found two mitigating circumstances: plea of guilty under paragraph 7, and extreme
    poverty and under paragraph 10, of article 13 of the Revised Penal Code. The court also considered the aggravating
    circumstances of recidivism.

    The trial court sentenced him to suffer one month and one day of arresto mayor as principal penalty and two years, four
    months, and one day of prision correccional as additional penalty for habitual delinquency.

     The question raised by the counsel is whether the correctness of the consideration by the trial court of
    recidivism as an aggravating circumstance for the purpose of imposing the additional penalty for habitual
    delinquency, the counsel contended that recidivism should not have been taken into account because it is
    inherent in habitual delinquency. But the court stated that the error committed by the trial court lies not so
    much in its having considered recidivism as an aggravating circumstance for the purpose of penalizing habitual
    delinquency, as in its having considered appellant as a habitual delinquent at all, it appearing from the
    information that his two previous convictions were more than ten years apart.
     The last paragraph of Art. 62, No. 5 of the Revised Penal Code states that "A person shall be deems to be
    habitually delinquent, if within a period of ten years from the date of his release or last conviction of the crimes
    of robo, hurto, estafa, or falsification, he is found guilty of any of said crimes a third time or oftener." Therefore,
    appellant's first conviction, which took place in November, 1928, cannot be taken into account because his
    second conviction took place in August, 1942, or fourteen years later. Hence within the purview of the Habitual
    Delinquency Law appellant has only one previous conviction against him, namely, that of 1942.

    The trial court also found that Macbul, on account of extreme poverty and of the economic difficulties brought about by
    the present cataclysm, was forced to pilfer the two sacks of papers mentioned in the information from the Customhouse
    Building, which he sold for P2.50, in order to be able to buy something to eat for various minor children of his. (The
    stolen goods were subsequently recovered.)
     The court held that, the right to life is more sacred than a mere property right. That is not to encourage or even
    countenance theft but merely to dull somewhat the keen and pain-producing edges of the stark realities of life.
    The court also affirmed that the principal penalty and eliminating the additional penalty, without costs.

    Issue: W/N the extreme proverty is considered mitigating circumstant in view of Art. 13, par. 10 of the Revised Penal
    Code.

    Ruling: the SC agrees and approves the trial court’s consideration of extreme poverty and economic difficulties as a
    mitigating circumstance within the meaning of par. 10, art. 13 of the RPC, that Macbul was forced to pilfer the two sacks
    of papers which he sold for P2.50, in order to be able to but something to eat for various minor children of his. (The
    stolen goods were subsequently recovered.) The SC held that the right to life is more sacred than a mere property right.
    That is not to encourage or even countenance theft but merely to dull somewhat the keen and pain-producing edges of
    the stark realities of life. The SC affirmed the principal penalty and deleted the additional penalty.

    You might also like