ChanRobles™ Virtual Law Library | chanrobles.com™  
Main Index Law Library Philippine Laws, Statutes & Codes Latest Legal Updates Philippine Legal Resources Significant Philippine Legal Resources Worldwide Legal Resources Philippine Supreme Court Decisions United States Jurisprudence
Prof. Joselito Guianan Chan's The Labor Code of the Philippines, Annotated Labor Standards & Social Legislation Volume I of a 3-Volume Series 2019 Edition (3rd Revised Edition)
 

 
Chan Robles Virtual Law Library
 









 

 
UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE
 

 
PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE
 

   
August-1916 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. 9366 August 1, 1916 - YAP TICO & CO. v. H. C. ANDERSON

    034 Phil 626

  • G.R. No. 10010 August 1, 1916 - CHU JAN v. LUCIO BERNAS

    034 Phil 631

  • G.R. No. 11371 August 1, 1916 - UNITED STATES v. CECILIA MEMORACION

    034 Phil 633

  • G.R. No. 11497 August 1, 1916 - UNITED STATES v. LORENZO BLANZA

    034 Phil 639

  • G.R. No. 11597 August 1, 1916 - UNITED STATES v. DARIO PADILLA

    034 Phil 641

  • G.R. No. 11634 August 1, 1916 - UNITED STATES v. BARAMBANGAN

    034 Phil 645

  • G.R. No. 8452 August 2, 1916 - DEAN C.WORCESTER v. MARTIN OCAMPO

    034 Phil 646

  • G.R. No. 11389 August 2, 1916 - UNITED STATES v. JUAN SELLANO

    034 Phil 655

  • G.R. No. 11425 August 2, 1916 - UNITED STATES v. NGAN PING

    034 Phil 660

  • G.R. Nos. 10114 & 10137 August 3, 1916 - MELECIO MONTINOLA v. JOSE G. MONTALVO ET AL.

    034 Phil 662

  • G.R. No. 11050 August 7, 1916 - UNITED STATES v. LIM SOON

    034 Phil 668

  • G.R. No. 11159 August 7, 1916 - UNITED STATES v. MANUEL B. ASENSI

    034 Phil 671

  • G.R. No. 11420 August 7, 1916 - UNITED STATES v. WAN YANG

    034 Phil 679

  • G.R. No. 9957 August 8, 1916 - PERFECTO DE LA VEGA ET AL. v. TOMAS BALLILOS (or BALIELOS)

    034 Phil 683

  • G.R. No. 11477 August 8, 1916 - UNITED STATES v. TORIBIIO ANDAYA

    034 Phil 690

  • G.R. No. 11507 August 8, 1916 - UNITED STATES v. SEVERO DE LOS REYES

    034 Phil 693

  • G.R. No. 11510 August 8, 1916 - UNITED STATES v. BAHATAN

    034 Phil 695

  • G.R. No. 10712 August 10, 1916 - ANSELMO FERRAZZINI v. CARLOS GSELL

    034 Phil 697

  • G.R. No. 11566 August 10, 1916 - UNITED STATES v. MARCELO JOSE

    034 Phil 715

  • G.R. No. 11565 August 11, 1916 - UNITED STATES v. MARCELO JOSE

    034 Phil 723

  • G.R. No. 11162 August 12, 1916 - UNITED STATES v. F. LULING

    034 Phil 725

  • G.R. No. 11530 August 12, 1916 - UNITED STATES v. JUAN PONS

    034 Phil 729

  • G.R. No. 10100 August 15, 1916 - GALO ABRENICA v. MANUEL GONDA

    034 Phil 739

  • G.R. No. 11165 August 15, 1916 - UNITED STATES v. MANUEL B. ASENSI

    034 Phil 750

  • G.R. No. 11338 August 15, 1916 - UNITED STATES v. TAN OCO

    034 Phil 772

  • G.R. No. 11480 August 17, 1916 - UNITED STATES v. ROBERTO PANGILION

    034 Phil 786

  • G.R. No. 10374 August 18, 1916 - PIO MERCADO v. MARIA TAN-LINGCO

    034 Phil 793

  • G.R. No. 10891 August 18, 1916 - UNITED STATES v. EUGENIO KILAYKO

    034 Phil 796

  • G.R. No. 11711 August 18, 1916 - MANUEL CEMBRANO CHAN GUANCO v. INSULAR COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS

    034 Phil 802

  • G.R. No. 10988 August 19, 1916 - ROQUE SAMSON v. BRAULIO GARCIA

    034 Phil 805

  • G.R. No. 11488 August 19, 1916 - UNITED STATES v. LICERIO CASTEN

    034 Phil 808

  • G.R. No. 11653 August 19, 1916 - UNITED STATES v. GENOVEVA AQUINO

    034 Phil 813

  • G.R. No. 12096 August 22, 1916 - EMILIO DE CASTRO v. FERNANDO SALAS

    034 Phil 818

  • G.R. No. 11401 August 23, 1916 - UNITED STATES v. GREGORIO CRISTOBAL ET AL.

    034 Phil 825

  • G.R. No. 11427 August 23, 1916 - VY LIONG LIN v. INSULAR COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS

    034 Phil 832

  • G.R. No. 11505 August 25, 1916 - UNITED STATES v. SATAOA BUNGAOIL

    034 Phil 835

  • G.R. No. 11737 August 25, 1916 - UNITED STATES v. MARCELO JOSE ET AL.

    034 Phil 840

  • G.R. No. 11739 August 25, 1916 - CESAR MERCADER v. ADOLPH WISLIZENUS

    034 Phil 846

  • G.R. No. 11986 August 25, 1916 - MANUEL ORIA Y GONZALEZ v. RICHARD CAMPBELL

    034 Phil 850

  • G.R. No. 11071 August 26, 1916 - S. CHASE DE KRAFFT v. APOLINAR VELEZ

    034 Phil 854

  • G.R. No. 10868 August 28, 1916 - LEOCADIO JOAQUIN v. O. MITSUMINE

    034 Phil 858

  • G.R. No. 11267 August 31, 1916 - SEE CHIAT SEE HUAN v. INSULAR COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS

    034 Phil 865

  • G.R. No. 11562 August 31, 1916 - UNITED STATES v. SIMON LAZARO

    034 Phil 871

  • G.R. No. 11772 August 31, 1916 - UNITED STATES v. GAN LIAN PO

    034 Phil 880

  •  





     
     

    G.R. No. 11477  August 8, 1916 - UNITED STATES v. TORIBIIO ANDAYA<br /><br />034 Phil 690

     
    PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

    SECOND DIVISION

    [G.R. No. 11477. August 8, 1916. ]

    THE UNITED STATES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. TORIBIIO ANDAYA, Defendant-Appellant.

    Miguel de Leon for Appellant.

    Attorney-General Avanceña for Appellee.

    SYLLABUS


    RAPE WITH "LESIONES MENOS GRAVES;" PENALTY. — When, in the commission of the crime of violacion of a child twelve (12) years of age, lesiones menos graves result to the genital organs of the victim, the accused, if the information so charges, must be convicted of both crimes, violacion and lesiones menos graves, the latter being the necessary means of committing the former; but he shall be punished for one crime only and that the most serious crime, and the penalty imposed shall be in its maximum degree. (Article 89, Penal Code.)


    D E C I S I O N


    MORELAND, J. :


    This is an appeal from a judgment rendered by the Court of First Instance of Tarlac convicting the accused of rape with minor injuries as defined in articles 438 and 418 of the Penal Code, and sentencing him to 17 years 14 months and one day of reclusion temporal, to the accessories provided in article 59, to indemnify the injured person in the sum of P500, to maintain the child if any there should be, and to pay the costs of the trial. There were no aggravating or extenuating circumstances except that of uninhabited place which was not taken into consideration by the court. The maximum penalty was imposed by virtue of the provisions of article 89 of the Penal Code which provides that, where one crime is a necessary means of committing another the accused shall be punished for only one of the offenses and that the most serious in its maximum degree. An appeal was taken by the accused.

    The guilt of the appellant is not denied by counsel for the Appellant. The only question raised relates to the penalty imposed by the trial court, counsel saying in his brief that "from the evidence presented on the trial, which is clearly stated in the decision of the court, counsel for the appellant agrees with the decision of the court, but must dissent with respect to the penalty imposed on the accused." Counsel then proceeds to assign a single error which is to the effect that the court violated the law in imposing the maximum penalty and in failing to consider provided for in article 11 of the Penal Code.

    The guilt of the accused is established beyond all question. The child violated was about 12 years of age. Her testimony is direct and positive and so thoroughly sustained by the evidence and the circumstances of the case that there is no room for doubt about the guilt of the accused. In committing the crime charged there resulted an injury to the genital organs of the little girl that required medical attention for about twenty days. The question is, therefore, whether the trial court was correct in applying article 89 of the Penal Code and imposing the maximum penalty. Did the acts of the accused constitute the commission of two crimes, namely, lesiones menos graves and rape? Or were the two crimes so closely related to each other, that of slight injuries so completely a part of the crime of rape that they may be already seen, the learned trial court found that the acts of the accused constituted two crimes, lesiones menos graves and rape, that of the laceration of the genital parts being necessary to the commission of the rape; and, in obedience to the provisions of article 89 of the Penal Code which provides that, under such circumstances, the accused shall be punished for only one of the crimes and that the more severe in its maximum degree, imposed the maximum penalty. We are of the opinion that the trial court was correct as to the penalty. The supreme court of Spain has frequently held that acts such as those committed by the accused in this case constitute two separate and distinct crimes, the one being the necessary means of committing the other; and that the accused must be punished for the severer crime in its maximum degree (decision of the 23d of March, 1885; of the 29th of April, 1897; and 22d of February, 1902.) The trial court therefore correctly imposed the maximum penalty.

    The judgment appealed from is affirmed, with costs against the Appellant. So ordered.

    Torres, Johnson, Trent, and Araullo, JJ., concur.

    G.R. No. 11477  August 8, 1916 - UNITED STATES v. TORIBIIO ANDAYA<br /><br />034 Phil 690


    Back to Home | Back to Main

     

    QUICK SEARCH

    cralaw

       

    cralaw



     
      Copyright © ChanRobles Publishing Company Disclaimer | E-mail Restrictions
    ChanRobles™ Virtual Law Library | chanrobles.com™
     
    RED