Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1934 > August 1934 Decisions > G.R. No. 40198 August 1, 1934 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. BENEDICTO URSUA

060 Phil 252:




PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

EN BANC

[G.R. No. 40198. August 1, 1934.]

THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. BENEDICTO URSUA, Defendant-Appellant.

Villafuerte, Tible & Valer for Appellant.

Ocampo & Cea and Rosendo R. Luntok for the offended party as appellee.

SYLLABUS


1. CRIMINAL LAW; CIVIL LIABILITY OF THE ACCUSED; INDEMNITY TO THE HEIRS OF THE DECEASED; RIGHTS OF THE PRIVATE PROSECUTION. — The resolution of the trial court to the effect that, inasmuch as the cause was appealed by the accused, it had lost its jurisdiction to pass upon the motion for reconsideration of the private prosecution based on the failure of said court to make any finding with respect to the civil liability of the accused and to sentence him to indemnify the heirs of the deceased, is unfounded.

2. ID.; ID.; ID.; ID. — The right of the injured persons in an offense to take part in its prosecution and to appeal for purposes of the civil liability of the accused (section 107 of General Orders, No. 58), necessarily implies that such right is protected in the same manner as the right of the accused to his defense.

3. ID.; ID.; ID.; ID. — If the court, independently of the appeal of the accused, has jurisdiction, within fifteen days from the date of the judgment, to allow the appeal of the offended party, it also has jurisdiction to pass upon the motion for reconsideration filed by the private prosecution relative to the civil liability of the accused.

4. ID.; ID.; ID. — The above cited section 107 of General Orders, No. 58 expressly imposes upon the courts the duty of entering judgment with respect to the civil liability arising from the offense, if no reservation has been made to ventilate it in a separate action. Therefore, it was an error for the court not to have entered judgment with respect to the civil liability of the accused. (Springer v. Odlin, 3 Phil., 344.)


D E C I S I O N


AVANCEÑA, C.J. :


In the Court of First Instance of Camarines Sur, an information was filed against Benedicto Ursua, charging him with the crime of homicide through reckless imprudence. In the course of the trial, in which the private prosecution intervened, and after the evidence had been taken, the trial court found the following facts to be proven.

On November 17, 1932, in the municipality of Libmanan, Province of Camarines Sur, the accused, who was acting as municipal president, ordered the policeman Alejandro Quiro to ask the municipal president for the latter’s revolver. When Alejandro Quiro delivered the revolver to the accused, the latter, noticing that it was not loaded, requested the chief of police to load it. The chief of police loaded it with four cartridges and delivered it to the accused, with the cylinder in proper place and the trigger locked. Shortly after the accused had taken the revolver in his hands, a discharge was heard which hit Alejandro Quiro in the abdomen, resulting in his death.

Upon these facts, the trial court found the accused guilty of the crime of homicide through reckless imprudence, as charged in the information, and sentenced him to one year and one day of prision correccional. The court, however, failed to enter judgment with respect to the civil liability of the accused in favor of the heirs of the deceased.

The judgment of the trial court was rendered on July 8, 1933, and the accused was notified thereof on July 13th, on which date the accused filed notice of appeal. On the 18th of the same month, the private prosecution filed with the court a motion for reconsideration of its judgment on the ground that it failed to make any finding relative to the civil liability of the accused and to sentence him to indemnify the heirs of the deceased. The trial court, believing that, because the cause had been appealed by the accused and said appeal had been allowed, it had already lost its jurisdiction to pass upon the motion of the private prosecution, denied the said motion. The private prosecution excepted to this ruling and appealed therefrom.

In this instance, this court, in its resolution dated November 28, 1933, declared the appeal of the accused abandoned. Therefore, the only question left to be decided is the appeal of the private prosecution with regard to the civil liability of the accused.

The trial court’s resolution that, because the cause had been appealed by the accused, it had lost its jurisdiction to pass upon the motion for reconsideration filed by the private prosecution nine days after the date of the judgment, is unfounded.

The right of the injured persons in an offense to take part in its prosecution and to appeal for purposes of the civil liability of the accused (section 107, General Orders, No. 58), necessarily implies that such right is protected in the same manner as the right of the accused to his defense. If the accused has the right within fifteen days to appeal from the judgment of conviction, the offended party should have the right within the same period to appeal from so much of the judgment as is prejudicial to him, and his appeal should not be made dependent on that of the accused. If upon appeal by the accused the court altogether loses its jurisdiction over the cause, the offended party would be deprived of his right to appeal, although fifteen days have not yet elapsed from the date of the judgment, if the accused files his appeal before the expiration of said period. Therefore, if the court, independently of the appeal of the accused, has jurisdiction, within fifteen days from the date of the judgment, to allow the appeal of the offended party, it also has jurisdiction to pass upon the motion for reconsideration filed by the private prosecution in connection with the civil liability of the accused.

As to the rest, it was an error for the court not to have entered judgment with respect to the civil liability of the accused (Springer v. Odlin, 3 Phil., 344). Section 107 of General Orders, No. 58 expressly imposes upon the courts the duty of entering judgment with respect to the civil liability arising from the offense, if no reservation has been made to ventilate it in a separate action.

Wherefore, it is hereby ordered that the case be remanded to the court of origin for the purpose of determining the civil liability of the accused (U. S. v. Heery, 25 Phil., 600, 602). So ordered.

Street, Abad Santos, Vickers and Diaz, 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






August-1934 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. 40198 August 1, 1934 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. BENEDICTO URSUA

    060 Phil 252

  • G.R. No. 40709 August 1, 1934 - ASTURIAS SUGAR CENTRAL, INC. v. PURE CANE MOLASSES CO., INC.

    060 Phil 255

  • G.R. No. 41568 August 2, 1934 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. TRANQUILINO BALANSAG

    060 Phil 266

  • G.R. No. 40372 August 4, 1934 - GOTIAOCO HERMANOS, INC. v. FELICIANA ENRIQUEZ, ET AL.

    060 Phil 273

  • G.R. No. 41040 August 9, 1934 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. GELACIO DEQUIÑA

    060 Phil 279

  • G.R. No. 41131 August 9, 1934 - MUNICIPALITY OF SAN MIGUEL v. PROVINCIAL BOARD OF LEYTE, ET AL.

    060 Phil 289

  • G.R. No. 41308 August 9, 1934 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. CO CHANG

    060 Phil 293

  • G.R. Nos. 41984 & 42051 August 9, 1934 - NEMESIO MONTEVERDE, ET AL. v. DELFIN JARANILLA, ET AL.

    060 Phil 297

  • G.R. No. 42142 August 9, 1934 - BACHRACH MOTOR CO., v. MARIANO A. ALBERT, ET AL.

    060 Phil 308

  • G.R. No. 40322 August 10, 1934 - SINFOROSO DE GALA v. GENEROSO DE GALA, ET AL.

    060 Phil 311

  • G.R. No. 40763 August 10, 1934 - UNITED STATES SHOE COMPANY v. LOURDES M. CATALA

    060 Phil 322

  • G.R. No. 40786 August 10, 1934 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. MAXIMINO ARIARTE

    060 Phil 326

  • G.R. No. 40958 August 11, 1934 - JOSE SANTOS v. MARIA LUCIANO

    060 Phil 328

  • G.R. No. 41292 August 11, 1934 - RAYMUNDO TRANSPORTATION CO., INC. v. LUNETA MOTOR CO., ET AL.

    060 Phil 335

  • G.R. No. 40945 August 15, 1934 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ANTONIO ASTUDILLO

    060 Phil 338

  • G.R. Nos. 40543 & 40544 August 16, 1934 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. IMAM AMPAN, ET AL.

    060 Phil 348

  • G.R. No. 40934 August 16, 1934 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ELENO QUINTO

    060 Phil 351

  • G.R. No. 40445 August 17, 1934 - NICOLASA MACAM v. JUANA GATMAITAN

    060 Phil 358

  • G.R. No. 40553 August 17, 1934 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. FRANCISCO BUADA, ET AL.

    060 Phil 363

  • G.R. No. 41503 August 17, 1934 - E. M. MASTERSON v. SMITH NAVIGATION COMPANY

    060 Phil 366

  • G.R. No. 40577 August 23, 1934 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. PROCOPIO REYES, ET AL.

    060 Phil 369

  • G.R. No. 41313 August 24, 1934 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. LUIS MANDIA

    060 Phil 372

  • G.R. No. 42181 August 24, 1934 - PEDRO V. MANZA, ET AL. v. EDUARDO GUTIERREZ DAVID, ET AL.

    060 Phil 379

  • G.R. No. 42209 August 24, 1934 - VICENTE BAUTISTA, ET AL. v. VALERIANO FUGOSO, ET AL.

    060 Phil 383

  • G.R. No. 40581 August 25, 1934 - ALEJANDRO SAMIA v. IRENE MEDINA, ET AL.

    060 Phil 391

  • G.R. No. 41045 August 25, 1934 - CANUTO JOAQUIN, ET AL. v. ROBERTA JOAQUIN, ET AL.

    060 Phil 395

  • G.R. No. 41311 August 28, 1934 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. LEON L. MALLARI, ET AL.

    060 Phil 400

  • G.R. No. 40766 August 29, 1934 - W. S. PRICE v. YU CHENGCO, ET AL.

    060 Phil 410

  • G.R. No. 41002 August 29, 1934 - BACHRACH MOTOR CO., INC. v. PROVINCE OF NUEVA ECIJA

    060 Phil 419

  • G.R. No. 41205 August 29, 1934 - SATURNINO AGUILAR, ET AL. v. PASAY TRANSPORTATION CO., INC.

    060 Phil 423

  • G.R. No. 41213 August 29, 1934 - MANILA RAILROAD COMPANY v. ASUNCION MITCHEL VIUDA DE SY QUIA, ET AL.

    060 Phil 430

  • G.R. No. 41532 August 29, 1934 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. MARIANO FORMENTO, ET AL.

    060 Phil 434

  • G.R. No. 42137 August 29, 1934 - PEDRO REYES v. JESUS M. PAZ, ET AL.

    060 Phil 440

  • G.R. No. 39871 August 30, 1934 - EMILIA FRANCISCO, ET AL. v. ANTONINA JASON, ET AL.

    060 Phil 442

  • G.R. No. 40905 August 30, 1934 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ANDRES SANTOS

    060 Phil 450

  • G.R. No. 40913 August 30, 1934 - EUGENIO ALIMON v. CHIEF OF CONSTABULARY

    060 Phil 456

  • G.R. No. 41456 August 30, 1934 - J. T. KNOWLES v. GOVERNMENT OF THE PHIL.

    060 Phil 461

  • G.R. No. 39810 August 31, 1934 - BENITO TAN CHAT, ET AL. v. MUNICIPALITY OF ILOILO

    060 Phil 465

  • G.R. No. 40921 August 31, 1934 - IN RE: SIY CHONG LIN v. COLLECTOR OF INTERNAL REVENUE

    060 Phil 493

  • G.R. No. 41421 August 31, 1934 - ROSENDO R. LLAMAS, ET AL. v. GONZALO ABAYA, ET AL.

    060 Phil 502

  • G.R. No. 41534 August 31, 1934 - M.P. TRANSPORTATION CO., INC. v. MANILA RAILROAD COMPANY

    060 Phil 506

  • G.R. No. 42241 August 31, 1934 - C.P. FELICIANO v. GIL CALIMBAS, ET AL.

    060 Phil 509

  • G.R. No. 42259 August 31, 1934 - ISABEL BIBBY PADILLA v. A. HORRILLENO, ET AL.

    060 Phil 511