Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1910 > September 1910 Decisions > G.R. No. L-5919 September 16, 1910 - UNITED STATES v. PEDRO LETE

017 Phil 79:




PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

FIRST DIVISION

[G.R. No. L-5919. September 16, 1910. ]

THE UNITED STATES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. PEDRO LETE, Defendant-Appellant.

Edward B. Bruce, for Appellant.

Attorney-General Villamor, for Appellee.

SYLLABUS


1. CRIMINAL PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE; WAIVER OF RIGHT TO PRELIMINARY INVESTIGATION; OBJECTIONS UPON APPEAL. — The right to a preliminary investigation conferred by statute is one that may be waived. (People v. Tarbox, 115 Cal., 57; 46 Pac. Rep. (Idaho), 945; 46 Neb., 631; 83 Wis., 486; People v. Harris, 103 Mich., 473; 25 Fla., 675; 45 Hunm., 34; U. S. v. Cockrill, 8 Phil. Rep., 742; U. S. v. Asebuque, 9 Phil. Rep., 241.) If no objection is raised in the court below on the ground that there has been no preliminary investigation, the accused will be deemed to have waived his right thereto, and such objection can not be raised for the first time upon appeal. (U. S. v. Asebuque, 9 Phil. Rep., 241; 54 Kan., 206; 44 Neb., 417.)


D E C I S I O N


MORELAND, J. :


The defendant in this case was convicted in the Court of First Instance of the Province of La Union of a violation of the Gambling Law. He was sentenced to six months in prison and to pay a fine of P200. From the judgment of conviction and the sentence imposed thereunder the defendant appealed to this court.

The two questions raised by the appellant on this appeal are, first, that the Court of First Instance had no jurisdiction over the defendant because there had been no preliminary investigation, and, second, that the penalty imposed was excessive.

It appears from the records that the crime for the commission of which the defendant stands convicted was committed in the municipality of San Juan, Province of La Union; that the defendant was arrested by and brought before the justice of the peace of that municipality; that, by reason of the suspension of that justice of the peace from the performance of the duties of his office, the cause was transferred to the justice of the peace of the municipality of San Fernando, an adjoining municipality; that a preliminary investigation was had before the justice of the peace of San Fernando, who found that the facts warranted the conclusion that the defendant was probably guilty of the crime charged and accordingly certified the case in form of law to the Court of First Instance of the Province of La Union.

It also appears from the record that no objection was made by the defendant to the transfer of the cause from the one justice to the other and that he made no objection whatever before the Court of First Instance as to its jurisdiction to try him or as to the failure of a preliminary investigation prior to the trial. The question of the failure of a preliminary investigation and the consequential lack of jurisdiction of the Court of First Instance was raised for the first time here. In the case of the United States v. Aquino and others (11 Phil. Rep., 244) this court said (p. 247):jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"No objection appears to have been made to this proceeding either in the court of the justice of the peace or in the trial court, nor did the accused raise any objection at the trial upon the ground now raised for the first time upon appeal, that they were not given a preliminary investigation than that which was accorded them in the court of the justice of the peace of San Fernando, and to have waive those defects in the preliminary proceedings which are now indicated by the counsel upon appeal. It has been uniformly held, not only by this court but by the various courts of the United States, that when provision is made for the preliminary trial of accused persons by a justice of the peace, this right is one which may be waived by the accused (People v. Tarbox, 115 Cal., 57; 47 Pac. Rep. (Idaho), 945; 46 Neb., 631; 83 Wis., 486; People v. Harris, 103 Mich., 473; 25 Fla., 675; 45 Hun., 34; U. S. v. Cockrill, 8 Phil. Rep., 742; U. S. v. Asebuque, 9 Phil. Rep., 241); and this court has frequently held that where the accused fails to object to proceedings upon the ground that he has had no preliminary investigation, he must be taken to have waived his right thereto, and can not raise an objection upon this ground for the first time upon appeal. (U. S. v. Asebuque, 9 Phil. Rep., 241; 54 Kan., 206; 44 Neb 417.)"

The same proposition was laid down in the case of the United States v. Asebuque (9 Phil. Rep., 241.)

These consideration dispose of the first assignment of error.

As to the second assignment of error, namely, that the penalty imposed was excessive, the court below, in his opinion sentencing the defendant, said:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"The evidence further shows that all the witnesses who testified against the accused were, with one exception, young men. One of them was 23 years of age, one 17 years of age, and one 23 years of age. The evidence shows that these young men were not playing, but they were allowed to be present at the game and have the temptation set before them and they would be apt to play whenever they had money enough to enter the game. The court considers that any man who conducts a gambling house and admits the youth of the country into it for the purpose of seducing them from the path of virtue and teaching them the vice of gambling deserves a severe punishment."cralaw virtua1aw library

We can not say, upon the whole case, that the punishment is excessive, particularly in view of the finding of the court above quoted.

The judgment of the court below is, therefore, affirmed, with costs against the Appellant.

Arellano, C.J., Torres. Johnson, and Trent, JJ., concur.




Back to Home | Back to Main




















chanrobles.com





ChanRobles On-Line Bar Review

ChanRobles Internet Bar Review : www.chanroblesbar.com

ChanRobles MCLE On-line

ChanRobles Lawnet Inc. - ChanRobles MCLE On-line : www.chanroblesmcleonline.com






September-1910 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. 5649 September 6, 1910 - UNITED STATES v. ISAAC SAMONTE

    016 Phil 516

  • G.R. No. 5751 September 6, 1910 - UNITED STATES v. LOPE ESTRAÑA

    016 Phil 520

  • G.R. No. L-5430 September 8, 1910 - UNITED STATES v. JULIO VITUG ET AL.

    017 Phil 1

  • G.R. No. 5730 September 9, 1910 - REGINO SALACUP v. SOTERO RAMBAC

    017 Phil 21

  • G.R. No. L-5771 September 9, 1910 - JOSE A. PATERNO v. CITY OF MANILA

    017 Phil 26

  • G.R. No. L-5745 September 12, 1910 - LUENGO & MARTINEZ v. ANTONIO HERRERO ET AL.

    017 Phil 29

  • G.R. No. L-5963 September 13, 1910 - FAUSTINO LICHAUCO v. GEORGE AMRSTONG, ET AL.

    017 Phil 39

  • G.R. No. L-5052 September 16, 1910 - OBRAS PIAS v. FELIZARDA DEVERA IGNACIO ET AL.

    017 Phil 45

  • G.R. No. L-5246 September 16, 1910 - MANUELA GREY ALBA ET AL. v. ANACLETO R. DE LA CRUZ

    017 Phil 49

  • G.R. No. L-5343 September 16, 1910 - CELESTINO RODRIGUEZ v. LUISA RAVILAN

    017 Phil 63

  • G.R. No. L-5754 September 16, 1910 - UNITED STATES v. VALENTIN DE JOSE

    017 Phil 71

  • G.R. No. L-5805 September 16, 1910 - UNITED STATES v. JOAQUIN ROMERO

    017 Phil 76

  • G.R. No. L-5919 September 16, 1910 - UNITED STATES v. PEDRO LETE

    017 Phil 79

  • G.R. No. L-5938 September 16, 1910 - JOSE MA. IBANEZ DE ALDECOA v. JOSE FORTIS ET AL.

    017 Phil 82

  • G.R. No. L-5840 September 17, 1910 - UNITED STATES v. EUSEBIO CLARIN

    017 Phil 84

  • G.R. No. L-5795 September 19, 1910 - UNITED STATES v. JOSE SANTOS

    017 Phil 87

  • G.R. No. L-5826 September 23, 1910 - UNITED STATES v. ANG SUYCO

    017 Phil 92

  • G.R. No. L-6000 September 26, 1910 - MGR. J. J. CARROLL v. HON. ISIDRO PAREDES

    017 Phil 94

  • G.R. No. L-4883 September 27, 1910 - NARCISO MARIGSA v. ILDEFONSA MACABUNTOC ET AL.

    017 Phil 107

  • G.R. No. L-5051 September 27, 1910 - HEIRS OF JUMERO v. JACINTO LIZARES ET AL.

    017 Phil 112

  • G.R. No. L-5411 September 27, 1910 - AGUEDA MAGSACAY ET AL. v. PETRONA S. FERNANDO

    017 Phil 120

  • G.R. No. L-5592 September 27, 1910 - JUAN GARCIA v. FRANCISCO REYES ET AL.

    017 Phil 127

  • G.R. No. L-5610 September 27, 1910 - EDUARDA GAREN ET AL. v. AGAPITO PILAR ET AL.

    017 Phil 132

  • G.R. No. L-5849 September 27, 1910 - UNITED STATES v. GABINA DE LA CRUZ

    017 Phil 139

  • G.R. No. L-5658 September 28, 1910 - UNITED STATES v. BENITO PARAISO ET AL.

    017 Phil 142

  • G.R. No. L-5753 September 28, 1910 - UNITED STATES v. GREGORIO MALLARI, ET AL.

    017 Phil 147