February 1906 - Philippine Supreme Court Decisions/Resolutions
Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence
Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1906 > February 1906 Decisions >
G.R. No. 2451 February 17, 1906 - UNITED STATES v. LEON LINESES
005 Phil 631:
005 Phil 631:
EN BANC
[G.R. No. 2451. February 17, 1906. ]
THE UNITED STATES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. LEON LINESES, Defendant-Appellant.
Mariano Mina, for Appellant.
Solicitor-General Araneta, for Appellee.
SYLLABUS
1. CONSPIRACY; SUBSIDIARY IMPRISONMENT. — The provision of Act No. 292 do not authorize the imposition of subsidiary imprisonment in the event of nonpayment of fines inflicted in accordance therewith.
D E C I S I O N
CARSON, J. :
The accused in this case was convinced of the crime of conspiracy, as defined and penalized in section 4 of Act No. 292 of the Philippine Commission, and sentenced to the penalty of the years’ imprisonment and to a fine of P1,000, with subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency, and to pay the costs of the trial.
The evidence contained in the record fully sustains the findings of the trial court, and we find no error in the proceedings prejudicial to the rights of the accused, except that the court imposed subsidiary imprisonment in the event of nonpayment of the fine, which is not authorized by the provisions of the act.
Except so much of the sentence as undertakes to impose subsidiary imprisonment, which is hereby reversed, the judgment and sentence appealed from is affirmed, with the costs of this instance against the Appellant. So ordered.
Arellano, C.J., Torres, Mapa, Johnson and Willard, JJ., concur.
The evidence contained in the record fully sustains the findings of the trial court, and we find no error in the proceedings prejudicial to the rights of the accused, except that the court imposed subsidiary imprisonment in the event of nonpayment of the fine, which is not authorized by the provisions of the act.
Except so much of the sentence as undertakes to impose subsidiary imprisonment, which is hereby reversed, the judgment and sentence appealed from is affirmed, with the costs of this instance against the Appellant. So ordered.
Arellano, C.J., Torres, Mapa, Johnson and Willard, JJ., concur.
