On April 8, 1930, the defendant presented himself at the complainant Francisco Barredo's barber shop, situated at No. 1950 Rizal Avenue, Manila, in search of employment. Barredo answered that he could not take him because the only job for an assistant was filled.  As it was meal  time he invited the accused to eat.   The latter answered  that he had already eaten, and offered to watch the barber shop. When  Barredo returned after  eating,  he found that the defendant had gone, and with him an electric fan and some scissors that were in the barber shop.

He then set about inquiring of his neighbors the where-abouts of that man, and Toribio  Rivera and Luis Pablo informed him that they had seen a man carrying an electric fan, leave the barber shop and get into a carromata.  Barredo reported the matter to the police,  and after some search, the electric fan was found in the "Palace Barber Shop"  belonging  to one Pedro  Bunac,  who  said he  had bought it of the defendant  for P20.   A brother  of the accused later took the scissors to the complainant's home. The electric fan and the scissors were worth P84.

The defendant had previously been convicted six times of theft by competent court, the last conviction having taken place on April 6,  1926.

In view of the  facts  set forth above, the defendant  was accused of the crime of theft before the municipal court, convicted and sentenced to suffer four years, two months, and one day  of prision correctional, to return the stolen goods to the owner, and to defray the costs.  The court also imposed upon him the additional penalty of twenty-one years for being an habitual offender.

The  defendant  appealed to the Court of First Instance and the latter also found him guilty of the crime charged in the information, and sentenced him to suffer four months and one day of arresto mayor, the accessories of law and the costs, besides an additional penalty of  sixteen years in accordance with subsection (c) of Act No. 3586.  The court also ordered him  to return the  stolen goods to the  owner.

From this  judgment also the defendant appealed,  contending that the lower court erred in finding that he  had already been previously convicted four times,  and in imposing upon him the penalty of sixteen years imprisonment.

The evidence shows  beyond reasonable doubt that the accused is guilty.  That he had been previously convicted six times of theft is also shown by Exhibit G, of the record, which is the defendant's criminal record  in  the  Manila police department.

In view of the evidence of record, the court below sentenced the accused to the penalty of four months and one day of  arresto  mayor, and  sixteen years'  additional imprisonment.  We hold that the court below erred in both penalties.   As  above  stated,  the  information charged the accused with the theft of goods valued at P84.  The case, therefore, falls under article  518, case 4 of the Penal Code, as amended by Act No. 3244; but in view of the; recidivism, the defendant must be punished in accordance with article 520, No. 3,  of said  Code,  which prescribes the penalty next higher  in degree to that of  article 518, case 4 of the Code, or four years, two months, and one day of prision, correctional,  with the accessories of law.   And it is not a bar to this conclusion that the defendant, being an habitual criminal, is also to be punished with the additional penalty assigned by the law, for in People vs. Aguinaldo (47 Phil., 728), the rule was laid down  that:

"The penalties provided  by  the Penal  Code  for the crime  of  theft or robbery  as  the  case may be,  must first be applied without reference to  the Habitual  Delinquency Law.   A determination of the penalty is arrived at independently of the provisions of the Habitual Delinquency Law even to  the extent of considering recidivism either as a qualifying or an aggravating circumstance.  Then to this penalty is added an additional penalty of one-half of the penalty imposed as provided by the Habitual Delinquency Law."

The court below also erred in imposing the additional penalty of sixteen  years, for, under  Act No. 3397,  subsection (d),  as amended by  Act No. 3586, the defendant must serve twenty-one  years' imprisonment, by way  of additional penalty.

With  these modifications, the  judgment  appealed  from must be, as it is hereby, affirmed, with costs against the appellant.  So ordered.

Avanceña,  C.  J.,  Johnson,  Street,  Malcolm,  Ostrand, Johns, Romualdez, and Villa-Real, JJ., concur.