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
 

   
March-1916 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. 10649 March 1, 1916 - BENITO AFRICA v. KURT W. GRONKE

    034 Phil 50

  • G.R. No. 10838 March 1, 1916 - ALFONSA CARLOS ET AL. v. MLA. ELECTRIC RAILROAD & LIGHT COMPANY

    034 Phil 55

  • G.R. No. 11148 March 1, 1916 - LIM BUN SU v. INSULAR COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS

    034 Phil 62

  • G.R. No. 10563 March 2, 1916 - UNITED STATES v. ANTONIO BONIFACIO

    034 Phil 65

  • G.R. No. 11262 March 2, 1916 - UNITED STATES v. GREGORIO T. GIMENEZ

    034 Phil 74

  • G.R. No. 7676 March 3, 1916 - JOSE LINO LUNA v. ESTEBAN ARCENAS

    034 Phil 80

  • G.R. No. 10265 March 3, 1916 - EUTIQUIANO CUYUGAN v. ISIDORO SANTOS

    034 Phil 100

  • G.R. No. 10918 March 4, 1916 - WILLIAM FRESSEL ET AL. v. MARIANO UY CHACO SONS & COMPANY

    034 Phil 122

  • G.R. No. 10971 March 4, 1916 - BEAUMONT & TENNEY v. BERNARD HERSTEIN

    034 Phil 127

  • G.R. No. 11216 March 6, 1916 - COMPAÑIA GENERAL DE TABACOS DE FILIPINAS v. BOARD OF PUBLIC UTILITY COMMISSIONERS

    034 Phil 136

  • G.R. No. 8473 March 7, 1916 - SANTIAGO YASON v. JULIO MAGSAKAY

    034 Phil 143

  • G.R. No. 10437 March 7, 1916 - JESUSA LAUREANO v. EUGENIO KILAYCO

    034 Phil 148

  • G.R. No. 10729 March 7, 1916 - UY PO v. INSULAR COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS

    034 Phil 153

  • G.R. No. 10793 March 17, 1916 - GOV’T. OF THE PHIL. ISLANDS v. JUDGE OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE OF ILOILO

    034 Phil 157

  • G.R. No. 11196 March 8, 1916 - UNITED STATES v. EUSTAQUIO YUMUL

    034 Phil 169

  • G.R. No. 11321 March 8, 1916 - UNITED STATES v. SY BUN KUE

    034 Phil 176

  • G.R. No. 10051 March 9, 1916 - ERLANGER & GALINGER v. SWEDISH EAST ASIATIC CO.

    034 Phil 178

  • G.R. No. 11115 March 10, 1916 - UNITED STATES v. SILVESTRE YU TUICO

    034 Phil 209

  • G.R. No. 10297 March 11, 1916 - AGAPITO BONZON v. STANDARD OIL COMPANY OF NEW YORK ET AL.

    034 Phil 211

  • G.R. No. 8135 March 13, 1916 - FRED J. LEGARE ET AL. v. ANTONIA CUERQUES

    034 Phil 221

  • G.R. No. 10449 March 13, 1916 - UNITED STATES v. ACLEMANDOS BLEIBEL

    034 Phil 227

  • G.R. No. 8092 March 14, 1916 - RUFINA BONDAD ET AL. v. VENANCIO BONDAD ET AL.

    034 Phil 232

  • G.R. No. 10578 March 14, 1916 - PACIFIC COMMERCIAL COMPANY v. MAURICIA SOTTO

    034 Phil 237

  • G.R. No. 11000 March 14, 1916 - UNITED STATES v. VALERIO MENDIETA

    034 Phil 242

  • G.R. No. 9497 March 15, 1916 - SIMONA GALICIA v. TEODORA NAVARRO

    034 Phil 245

  • G.R. No. 11467 March 15, 1916 - NG HIAN v. INSULAR COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS

    034 Phil 248

  • G.R. No. 10462 March 16, 1916 - ANDREA DUMASUG v. FELIX MODELO

    034 Phil 252

  • G.R. No. 9164 March 17, 1916 - UNITED STATES v. VY BO TEC

    034 Phil 260

  • G.R. No. 10354 March 17, 1916 - FELIPE DORADO v. AGRIPINO VIRIÑA

    034 Phil 264

  • G.R. No. 10718 March 17, 1916 - United States v. Ramon FERRER

    034 Phil 277

  • G.R. No. 11464 March 17, 1916 - VICTOR BIUNAS v. BENITO MORA

    034 Phil 282

  • G.R. No. 8954 March 21, 1916 - DOROTEA CABANG v. MARTIN DELFINADO

    034 Phil 291

  • G.R. No. 9340 March 21, 1916 - MARGARITO PENALOSA LO INTONG v. ISIDORA JAMITO ET AL.

    034 Phil 303

  • G.R. No. 10889 March 21, 1916 - UNITED STATES v. VALERIO MARTINEZ

    034 Phil 305

  • G.R. No. 11098 March 21, 1916 - CO PAIN v. INSULAR COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS

    034 Phil 310

  • G.R. No. 11154 March 21, 1916 - E. MERRITT v. GOVERNMENT OF THE PHIL. ISLANDS

    034 Phil 311

  • G.R. No. 8979 March 22, 1916 - ADRIANO PANLILIO v. PROVICIAL BOARD OF PAMPANGA ET AL.

    034 Phil 323

  • G.R. No. 10978 March 22, 1916 - SIXTO MANLAGNIT v. ALFONSO SANCHEZ DY PUICO

    034 Phil 325

  • G.R. No. 11315 March 22, 1916 - DIONISION CHANCO v. CARLOS IMPERIAL

    034 Phil 329

  • G.R. No. 8941 March 23, 1916 - GUILLERMO VELOSO v. LORENZO BECERRA

    034 Phil 334

  • G.R. No. 9984 March 23, 1916 - PETRONA JAVIER v. LAZARO OSMEÑA

    034 Phil 336

  • G.R. No. 10769 March 23, 1916 - RAYMUNDO MELLIZA v. F. W. TOWLE

    034 Phil 345

  • G.R. No. 11119 March 23, 1916 - JUANA RIVERA v. RICHARD CAMPBELL

    034 Phil 348

  • G.R. No. 8642 March 24, 1916 - STANDARD OIL COMPANY OF NEW YORK v. ANTONIO BABASA ET AL.

    034 Phil 354

  • G.R. Nos. 8765 & 10920 March 24, 1916 - PEDRO DIMAGIBA v. ANSELMO DIMAGIBA

    034 Phil 357

  • G.R. No. 8806 March 24, 1916 - ALEJANDRO BALDEMOR v. EUSEBIA MALANGYAON

    034 Phil 367

  • G.R. No. 9919 March 24, 1916 - ELISA TORRES DE VILLANUEVA v. STANDARD OIL COMPANY OF NEW YORD ET AL.

    034 Phil 370

  • G.R. No. 9974 March 24, 1916 - CANG YUI v. HENRY GARDENER

    034 Phil 376

  • G.R. No. 10560 March 24, 1916 - IN RE: Tan Po Pic v. JUAN L. JAVIER

    034 Phil 382

  • G.R. No. 10624 March 24, 1916 - MANILA RAILROAD COMPANY v. INSULAR COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS

    034 Phil 385

  • G.R. No. 10663 March 24, 1916 - JOSEPH E. FOX v. MANILA ELECTRIC RAILROAD AND LIGHT COMPANY

    034 Phil 389

  • G.R. No. 11384 March 24, 1916 - ANTONIO GUEVARA v. INSULAR COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS

    034 Phil 394

  • G.R. No. 10045 March 25, 1916 - PHIL. RAILWAY COMPANY v. WILLIAM T. NOLTING

    034 Phil 401

  • G.R. No. 10777 March 25, 1916 - ALEJANDRA v. COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE OF PANGASINAN

    034 Phil 404

  • G.R. No. 11157 March 25, 1916 - POLICARPIO RAMIREZ v. FRANCISCO DE OROZCO

    034 Phil 412

  • G.R. No. 10510 March 27, 1916 - LEONCIO ZARATE v. DIRECTOR OF LANDS ET AL.

    034 Phil 416

  • G.R. No. 10580 March 27, 1916 - TEODORO DE LOS REYES v. MAXIMINO PATERNO

    034 Phil 420

  • G.R. No. 11607 March 27, 1916 - PHIL. SUGAR ESTATES DEV. CO. (LTD.) v. ARMANDO CAMPS Y CAMPS

    034 Phil 426

  • G.R. No. 9845 March 28, 1916 - J. C. RUYMANN v. DIRECTOR OF LANDS

    034 Phil 428

  • G.R. No. 10054 March 28, 1916 - UNITED STATES v. ATANASIO CLARAVALL

    034 Phil 441

  • G.R. No. 10264 March 28, 1916 - CHOA TEK HEE v. PHIL. PUBLISHING CO.

    034 Phil 447

  • G.R. No. 10595 March 28, 1916 - TEODORO KALAMBAKAL v. VICENTE PAMATMAT ET AL.

    034 Phil 465

  • G.R. No. 10810 March 28, 1916 - MUNICIPALITY OF AGOO v. GABRIEL TAVORA

    034 Phil 475

  • G.R. No. 10902 March 28, 1916 - SERAPIA DE JESUS v. PABLO PALMA

    034 Phil 483

  • G.R. No. 11156 March 28, 1916 - IN RE: DU TEC CHUAN. M. G. VELOSO

    034 Phil 488

  • G.R. No. 11363 March 28, 1916 - BERNARDO MOLDEN v. INSULAR COLLETOR OF CUSTOMS

    034 Phil 493

  • G.R. No. 11366 March 28, 1916 - INSULAR COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS v. GOERGE R. HARVEY

    034 Phil 503

  • G.R. No. 9550 March 29, 1916 - BACHRACH GARAGE v. HOTCHKISS & CO.

    034 Phil 506

  • G.R. No. 10019 March 29, 1916 - THOMAS A. WALLACE v. PUJALTE & CO.

    034 Phil 511

  • G.R. No. 10202 March 29, 1916 - GOV’T. OF THE PHIL. ISLANDS Ex Rel. MUN. OF CARDONA v. MUN. OF BINANGONAN ET AL.

    034 Phil 518

  • G.R. No. 10474 March 29, 1916 - FRANCISCO OSORIO Y GARCIA v. SOLEDAD OSORIO

    034 Phil 522

  • G.R. No. 10493 March 29, 1916 - FREDERICK L. COHEN v. BENGUET COMMERCIAL CO. (Ltd.)

    034 Phil 526

  • G.R. No. 10751 March 29, 1916 - GOV’T. OF THE PHIL. ISLANDS v. MARIA CABALLERO Y APARICI

    034 Phil 540

  • G.R. No. 10778 March 29, 1916 - MUNICIPALITY OF DUMANGAS v. ROMAN CATHOLIC BISHOP OF JARO

    034 Phil 541

  • G.R. No. 11008 March 29, 1916 - MARIANO REAL ET AL. v. CESAREO MALLARI

    034 Phil 547

  • G.R. No. 11068 March 29, 1916 - FERNANDEZ HERMANOS v. HAROLD M. PITT

    034 Phil 549

  • G.R. No. 11274 March 29, 1916 - RAFAELA DALMACIO v. ALBERTO BARRETTO

    034 Phil 554

  • G.R. No. 11585 March 29, 1916 - PABLO PERLAS v. PEDRO CONCEPCION

    034 Phil 559

  • G.R. No. 8697 March 30, 1916 - M. GOLDSTEIN v. ALIJANDRO ROCES ET AL.

    034 Phil 562

  • G.R. No. 8988 March 30, 1916 - HARTFORD BEAUMONT v. MAURO PRIETO, ET AL.

    041 Phil 670

  •  




     
     

    G.R. No. 11157  March 25, 1916 - POLICARPIO RAMIREZ v. FRANCISCO DE OROZCO<br /><br />034 Phil 412

     
    PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

    FIRST DIVISION

    [G.R. No. 11157. March 25, 1916. ]

    POLICARPIO RAMIREZ, Petitioner, v. FRANCISCO DE OROZCO, warden of the provincial prison of Pangasinan, Appellees.

    Lawrence, Ross & Block for Petitioner.

    Attorney-General Avanceña for Respondent.

    SYLLABUS


    STATUTES; CONSTITUTIONALITY OF ACT No. 2098; IMPRISONMENT FOR DEBT. 1 — Held: Under the facts stated in the opinion, that Act No. 2098 of the Philippine Legislature is constitutional; that the Philippine Legislature had full power and authority to adopt it; that imprisonment under the provisions of said Act was not in violation of section 5 of the Act of Congress of 1902.


    D E C I S I O N


    JOHNSON, J. :


    This is an original petition for the writ of habeas corpus presented in this court. The plaintiff alleges that he is being unlawfully imprisoned and restrained of his liberty by the respondent Francisco de Orozco, warden of the provincial prison of the Province of Pangasinan, at said provincial prison in the Municipality of Lingayen, Province of Pangasinan, Philippine Islands; that said imprisonment and restraint are illegal; and that the illegality thereof consists in this, to wit, that the petitioner was charged with a violation of section 1 of Act No. 2098 of the Philippine Legislature, tried, convicted, and sentenced for such violation in criminal cause No. 645 of the court of the justice of the peace of the municipality of San Jacinto, Province of Pangasinan; that the imprisonment of your petitioner as aforesaid is for debt, in contravention of that part of section 5 of the Act of Congress of July 1, 1902, which provides that no person shall be imprisoned for debt in the Philippine Islands.

    Attached to the petition there appears the complaint and sentence of the said justice of the peace. Said complaint alleges —

    "The undersigned accuses Policarpio Ramirez of having infringed section 1 of the Act of the Philippine Legislature governing the hiring of personal services as follows: That on or about the 6th of November, 1914, in the municipality of San Jacinto, Province of Pangasinan, P.I., with the purpose of defrauding and deceiving the injured person Alejandro Santos, he asked the said Santos to pay into the municipal treasury of the same pueblo the sum of P16, Philippine currency, as cedula tax owing but not paid by accused, the accused undertaking to give his personal services in exchange therefor that, in view of this promise, the injured person did pay P16, Philippine currency, into the municipal treasury of this town, handling over to the accused said cedulas; that once in possession of said cedulas the accused did not fulfill his above-mentioned promise, failed to give his personal services to the above-mentioned injured person, and damaged the same to the aforesaid amount of P16, Philippine currency, equivalent to 80 pesetas. Act performed in violation of the Act above mentioned.

    Said complaint was duly sworn to before the said justice of the peace.

    Upon the presentation of said complaint, and it appearing to said justice of the peace that a crime had been committed, he issued a warrant for the arrest of the defendant upon the 12th of February, 1915.

    On the 2d of June, 1915, the defendant was brought before the said justice of the peace and arraigned. Upon said arraignment the justice of the peace made the following memorandum:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

    "In the justice of the peace court of San Jacinto, Province of Pangasinan, P. I., June 2, 1915, in compliance with a judicial order, the accused Policarpio Ramirez y Narcisa appeared before me, Juan Lagera, justice of the peace, but without counsel in spite of having been advised of his right, and heard read the charge lodged against him by Alejandro Santos; after having heard the charge he voluntarily and spontaneously pleaded guilty in the presence of Geminiano Reyes and Ambrosio de la Cruz.

    "I, the justice of the peace, in view of this plea of the accused, advised him of his right to amend the same and to substitute one of not guilty therefor, but on hearing this he replied he insisted and that he could not change it.

    "Thus he set forth and, as he said he could not write, he placed his thumb mark between his baptismal and his surname, after my signature. The undersigned justice of the peace who certifies (Signed.) Juan Lagera, Justice of the Peace."cralaw virtua1aw library

    Later the said justice of the peace rendered the following sentence:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

    "In the complaint filed in this case it is alleged that on or about the 16th of November, 1914, in the municipality of San Jacinto, Province of Pangasinan, P.I., Policarpio Ramirez, with the object of defrauding and deceiving the complaint Alejandro Sanchez, asked the latter to pay into the municipal treasury of San Jacinto, Pangasinan, P.I., the sum of P16, Philippine currency that being the amount owing by the accused for his unpaid cedulas, under the promise to render personal services to the offended party in return therefor; that in view of this promise the offended party paid the P16, Philippine currency, into the municipal treasury of San Jacinto, Pangasinan, and delivered to the accused the said cedulas; that once in possession of the said cedulas the accused, without proper cause and without returning the money, failed to comply with his said promise, refused to render personal services to the said offended person and failed to render the said services, thereby injuring said offended person in the said sum of P16, Philippine currency, an act committed within the jurisdiction of this court in violation of the above-mentioned law.

    "The accused, on being informed of the charge by having it read and interpreted to him in the dialect of the locality, freely and voluntarily pleaded guilty to the charge as alleged in the complaint, there being present Messrs. Geminiano Reyes and Ambrosio de la Cruz.

    "In view of this confession of the accused, the court finds him guilty of the infraction charged, wherefore.

    "By these presents the court sentences Policarpio Ramirez y Narcisa to suffer the penalty of four months’ imprisonment in accordance with section 1 if Act No. 2098 of the Philippine Legislature, to return to the offended person the sum of P16, Philippine currency, and to pay the costs. So ordered."cralaw virtua1aw library

    Upon the presentation of the petition and the exhibits above referred to an order was issued requiring the respondent to show cause why the defendant should not be given his liberty.

    On the 6th of September, 1915, the Attorney-General, representing the respondent t, answered said petition, admitted some of the facts alleged in the complaint and denied others. He alleged that he could not present the body of the petitioner, for the reason that he was enjoying his liberty under a cash bond presented by his attorney and denied "that the complainant had been imprisoned for debt, contrary to the provisions of section 5 of the Act of Congress of July 1, 1902, inasmuch as he was sentenced for an infraction of section 1 of Act No. 2098 of the Philippine Legislature; he denied that said section of Act No. 2098 of the Philippine Legislature; he denied that said section of Act No. 2098 was void or unconstitutional, inasmuch as it neither imposed imprisonment for nonpayment of debt nor established slavery or involuntary servitude, but merely punished a certain special kind of estafa; that consequently the Philippine Legislature had the power to enact the same, with the costs against the petitioners."cralaw virtua1aw library

    The only question presented by the petition, its exhibits and the answer is one relating to the constitutionality of Act No. 2098 of the Philippine Legislature. After a very careful examination into that question, we have arrived at the conclusion that said Act is constitutional; that the Philippine Legislature had full power and authority to adopt it. Therefore, without prejudice to the writing of a decision in which the constitutional question presented shall be more fully discussed, the petition for the writ of habeas corpus is hereby denied, with costs. So ordered.

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

    Separate Opinions


    MORELAND, J., concurring:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

    The only basis of this proceeding being the alleged unconstitutionality of the law in question, I am in favor of denying the application for the writ.

    Endnotes:



    1. See decision to the same effect; U. S. v. Montalvo (r. G. No. 10273, March 25, 1916) and Baño v. Siatong (R. G. No. 11215, March 25, 1916), not published.

    G.R. No. 11157  March 25, 1916 - POLICARPIO RAMIREZ v. FRANCISCO DE OROZCO<br /><br />034 Phil 412




    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