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
 

   
October-1916 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. 11813 October 6, 1916 - UNITED STATES v. HIGINIO SANTIAGO

    035 Phil 20

  • G.R. No. 11512 October 11, 1916 - UNITED STATES v. BINAYOH

    035 Phil 23

  • G.R. Nos. 11544 & 11545 October 11, 1916 - UNITED STATES v. DANIEL I. SOBREVINAS

    035 Phil 32

  • G.R. No. 10662 October 12, 1916 - ENGRACIO LAURENCIO v. INSULAR COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS

    035 Phil 37

  • G.R. No. 11524 October 12, 1916 - GOV’T. OF THE PHIL. ISLANDS v. EL MONTE DE PIEDAD Y CAJA DE AHORROS DE MANILA

    035 Phil 42

  • G.R. No. 11549 October 12, 1916 - UNITED STATES v. JOSE CAMPOS RUEDA, ET AL

    035 Phil 50

  • G.R. No. 11416 October 14, 1916 - UNITED STATES v. WAYNE SHOUP, ET AL

    035 Phil 56

  • G.R. No. 11490 October 14, 1916 - ALHAMBRA CIGAR, ET AL v. COMPANIA GEN. DE TABACOS DE FILIPINAS

    035 Phil 62

  • G.R. No. 10439 October 17, 1916 - GAN TINGCO v. SILVINO PABINGUIT

    035 Phil 81

  • G.R. No. 11226 October 17, 1916 - JOSE CASTILLO v. EULALIO BELISARIO

    035 Phil 89

  • G.R. No. 11676 October 17, 1916 - UNITED STATES v. ANDRES PABLO

    035 Phil 94

  • G.R. No. 11451 October 19, 1916 - UNITED STATES v. DOMINGO PEREZ, ET AL

    035 Phil 102

  • G.R. No. 8883 October 20, 1916 - FRANCISCA GONZALEZ, ET AL v. JOAQUIN GONZALEZ MONDRAGON

    035 Phil 105

  • G.R. No. 10169 October 23, 1916 - RUPERTO MONTINOLA v. JUAN TUASON

    035 Phil 113

  • G.R. No. 10044 October 24, 1916 - MANILA RAILROAD CO. v. MARIA AGUILAR, ET AL.

    035 Phil 118

  • G.R. No. 8703 October 26, 1916 - NAZARIO MARCELO v. CLEMENCIO MANIQUIS

    035 Phil 134

  • G.R. No. 11589 October 26, 1916 - UNITED STATES v. LORENZO ADOR DIONISIO

    035 Phil 141

  • G.R. No. 8160 October 27, 1916 - MARCOS DE LA CRUZ v. RAMON FABIE, ET AL.

    035 Phil 144

  • G.R. Nos. 10463 & 10440 October 27, 1916 - ROCHIRAM DHARAMDAS, ET AL. v. GOPALDAS HAROOMALL, ET AL.

    035 Phil 183

  • G.R. No. 10596 October 27, 1916 - ANGELO ROJAS, ET AL. v. DIRECTOR OF LANDS

    035 Phil 196

  • G.R. No. 11413 October 28, 1916 - FAUSTINO LICHAUCO, ET AL. v. RAYMUNDA SORIANO

    035 Phil 203

  • G.R. No. 11439 October 28, 1916 - UNITED STATES v. EDUARDO ELICANAL

    035 Phil 209

  • G.R. No. 11728 October 28, 1916 - MARCELINA CABUÑAG v. VICENTE JOCSON

    035 Phil 220

  • G.R. No. 11718 October 31, 1916 - UNITED STATES v. LORENZO MACASAET

    035 Phil 226

  •  





     
     

    G.R. No. 11813   October 6, 1916 - UNITED STATES v. HIGINIO SANTIAGO<br /><br />035 Phil 20

     
    PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

    SECOND DIVISION

    [G.R. No. 11813. October 6, 1916. ]

    THE UNITED STATES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. HIGINIO SANTIAGO, Defendant-Appellant.

    J. E. Blanco for Appellant.

    Attorney-General Avanceña for Appellee.

    SYLLABUS


    1. CRIMINAL LAW; PLEA OF GUILTY. — It is settled doctrine that a plea of guilty admits the material facts alleged in the complain or information. (U.S. v. Barba, 29 Phil. Rep., 206; U. S. v. Look Chaw, 18 Phil. Rep., 573; Crow v. State, 6 Tex., 334; Meyers v. State, 156 Ind., 388; Dreyspring v. Loeb, 119 Ala., 282.)

    2. ID.; ID. — A plea of guilty does not admit the existence of any fact not set out in the complaint or information.

    3. ID.; ID.; AGGRAVATING CIRCUMSTANCES. — Where a plea of guilty is made to an information which alleges no aggravating circumstance and there is nothing before the trial court but the facts stated in the information admitted by the plea, it is error to find that the crime was committed with an aggravating circumstances and to impose the penalty in its maximum degree.

    4. ID.; ID.; ID. — The existence of an aggravating circumstance cannot be legally found unless it is proved by the evidence or admitted by the accused.

    5. ID.; ID.; INDEMNITY. — Where a complaint or information in a criminal action does not allege facts upon which civil liability may be predicated, a plea of guilty thereto does not authorize the trial court to enter a judgment for indemnity.

    6. ID.; JUDGMENT FOR DAMAGES. — A judgment in a criminal action in favor of the injured persons for damages caused by the criminal acts of the defendant is erroneous where there is no evidence showing the amount thereof or from which the amount can be inferred.


    D E C I S I O N


    MORELAND, J. :


    The appeal in this case must be declared successful. The appellant was convicted of having inflicted minor injuries on one Federico Manalad, by cutting him in the face with a knife, and sentenced to six months of arresto mayor, to indemnify Manalad in the sum of P50, to suffer subsidiary imprisonment in case of neglect to pay, and to pay the costs of the trial. The information charges as follows:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

    "That the said accused, on or about the 28th day of January, 1916, in the municipality of Malolos, Province of Bulacan, P. I., voluntarily and criminally and without justification attacked Federico Manalad with a bolo, producing two wounds in the face which required ten days to be cured and the attendance of a physician during that period; and prevented him from following his usual occupation during the same number of days, in violation of law."cralaw virtua1aw library

    The accused pleaded guilty to the charge framed by this information and the court sentenced him as heretofore stated.

    On this appeal counsel deals exclusively with the penalty imposed, alleging that it is illegal and that the indemnity is excessive.

    It will be observed that the penalty imposed by the trial court is in its maximum degree. It is, of course, unquestioned law that, under the system of penalties established by the Penal Code, a penalty cannot legally be imposed in its maximum degree without the presence of one or more aggravating circumstances; and that an aggravating circumstance cannot be held to be present in a case unless its existence is admitted by the accused or has been proved by the prosecution beyond a reasonable doubt. In the case before us no evidence was taken; and a mere glance at the information discloses that it contains no allegation with reference to the circumstances under which the crime was committed. It is settled doctrine that a plea of guilty admits only the material facts alleged in the information. Such being the law it is clear that, when the accused pleaded guilty to the information under which he was brought to trial, his plea did not admit the existence of an aggravating circumstance as none was alleged; and that the trial court, in sentencing him, was not authorized by law to take into consideration an aggravating circumstances, and, as a result, impose the penalty in its maximum degree. The penalty should have been in the medium degree, namely, two months and one day of arresto mayor.

    The argument is similar with respect to the indemnity. There is no allegation in the information showing Manalad’s occupation or profession or the wages or salary he was earning at the time of the assault. Nor is there any allegation as to the amount expended in being cured of his injuries. There can be, then, no recovery as there is no evidence in the record upon which such recovery can be based.

    The sentence of the trial court is hereby modified and the accused is sentenced to two months and one day of arresto mayor and to pay the costs of the trial. No costs in this instance. So ordered.

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

    Johnson, J., did not take part.

    G.R. No. 11813   October 6, 1916 - UNITED STATES v. HIGINIO SANTIAGO<br /><br />035 Phil 20


    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