Court sentenced defendant to six months imprisonment for theft of farm machinery after finding guilt and considering recidivism.

Supreme Court quashes sentence for attempted fraud due to failure to consider recidivism under Art. 64 § 1 Penal Code.

Court convicted defendant of theft with recidivism, sentencing to one year imprisonment and ordering full restitution.

Appeal dismissed; court upheld conviction for burglary with recidivism, rejecting defense on mental capacity and evidence gaps.

Court imposes 2-year prison sentence for recidivist theft, rejecting probation due to high social danger.

Court dismisses theft charge due to statute of limitations after downgrading offense value under new law.

Appeal dismissed; lower court error in proceeding without defendant while he was detained elsewhere. The appeal was dismissed because the first-instance court held a trial while the defendant was serving a sentence in another facility, violating strict procedural rules regarding service of process and the ability to conduct a main hearing in his absence. The Supreme Court ruled that such a procedural defect necessitated the quashing of the verdict and remanding the case for a new trial, ensuring the defendant's rights were properly observed. The court also awarded costs to the defense attorney for the appeal proceedings. The decision emphasizes the rigidity of criminal procedure laws concerning the presence of the accused and the validity of summons delivery. This case highlights the critical importance of verifying a defendant's custody status before scheduling court appearances. The ruling serves as a reminder to lower courts to strictly adhere to procedural norms to ensure the validity of their judgments. Ultimately, the appeal failed due to the fundamental flaw in the trial's conduct rather than the merits of the criminal charge itself.