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
 

   
April-1939 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. 43850 April 3, 1939 - JOSE C. BUCOY v. JOHN R. MCFIE, ET AL.

    067 Phil 126

  • G.R. No. 45080 April 3, 1939 - FLORENCIA DUQUILLO v. PAZ BAYOT

    067 Phil 131

  • G.R. No. 45112 April 3, 1939 - APOLONIA GOMEZ v. LEVY HERMANOS, INC.

    067 Phil 134

  • G.R. No. 45144 April 3, 1939 - M. E. GREY v. INSULAR LUMBER COMPANY

    067 Phil 139

  • G.R. No. 45696 April 3, 1939 - PLACIDA PASCASIO, ET AL. v. BENITO GUIDO

    067 Phil 143

  • G.R. No. 45159 April 4, 1939 - GOVERNMENT OF THE PHIL. v. EMILIO MA. DE MORETA

    067 Phil 146

  • G.R. Nos. 46231-46235 April 4, 1939 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. PAULO B. GONZALEZ

    067 Phil 147

  • G.R. No. 46239 April 4, 1939 - SAN JUAN DE DIOS HOSPITAL v. ROSENDO MARCOS, ET AL.

    067 Phil 150

  • G.R. No. 46247 April 4, 1939 - SAN JUAN DE DIOS HOSPITAL v. MUNICIPAL COUNCIL OF SAN RAFAEL, ET AL.

    067 Phil 158

  • G.R. No. 45177 April 5, 1939 - JOSE MARTINEZ v. SANTOS B. PAMPOLINA

    067 Phil 167

  • G.R. No. 45193 April 6, 1939 - EMILIE ELMIRA RENEE BOUDARD, ET AL. v. STEWART EDDIE TAIT

    067 Phil 170

  • G.R. No. 46510 April 5, 1939 - ORIENT PROTECTIVE ASSURANCE ASSOCIATION v. ANTONIO RAMOS

    067 Phil 176

  • G.R. No. 45517 April 5, 1939 - TARCILA L. TRINIDAD v. ORIENT PROTECTIVE ASSURANCE ASSOCIATION

    067 Phil 181

  • G.R. No. 45738 April 6, 1939 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. MAXIMIANO CELORICO

    067 Phil 185

  • G.R. No. 45748 April 6, 1939 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. FRANCO VERA REYES

    067 Phil 187

  • G.R. No. 45955 April 5, 1939 - TEODORICA R. VIUDA DE JOSE v. JULIO VELOSO BARRUECO

    067 Phil 191

  • G.R. No. 46144 April 6, 1939 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. FRANCISCO CINCO, ET AL.

    067 Phil 196

  • G.R. No. 46409 April 5, 1939 - INSULAR MOTORS INCORPORATED v. CITY OF MANILA, ET AL.

    067 Phil 201

  • G.R. No. 46478 April 6, 1939 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. GO UG, ET AL.

    067 Phil 202

  • G.R. No. 43822 April 10, 1939 - PHILIPPINE TRUST CO. v. HONGKONG & SHANCHAI BANKING CORPORATION

    067 Phil 204

  • G.R. No. 45152 April 10, 1939 - HILARIA SIKAT v. JOHN CANSON

    067 Phil 207

  • G.R. No. 45170 April 10, 1939 - ARSENIO DE VERA, ET AL. v. CLEOTILDE GALAURAN

    067 Phil 213

  • G.R. No. 45171 April 10, 1939 - EUGENIO VERAGUTH, ET AL. v. ROSARIO MONTILLA, ET AL.

    067 Phil 215

  • G.R. No. 45192 April 10, 1939 - IN RE: VICENTE J. FRANCISCO

    067 Phil 222

  • G.R. No. 45200 April 10, 1939 - GOVERNMENT OF THE PHIL. v. APOLONIA S. ZAPANTA, ET AL.

    067 Phil 232

  • G.R. No. 45246 April 10, 1939 - CARLOS N. FRANCISCO v. PARSONS HARDWARE CO.

    067 Phil 234

  • G.R. No. 45273 April 10, 1939 - LUNETA MOTOR CO. v. FEDERICO ABAD

    067 Phil 236

  • G.R. No. 45295 April 10, 1939 - RUFO ARCENAS v. INOCENCIO DEL ROSARIO, ET AL.

    067 Phil 238

  • G.R. No. 45302 April 10, 1939 - GERVASIA ENCARNACION, ET AL. v. PROVINCIAL SHERIFF OF RIZAL, ET AL.

    067 Phil 245

  • G.R. No. 45337 April 10, 1939 - MANILA MOTOR CO. v. ANICETO MARAÑA

    067 Phil 247

  • G.R. No. 45381 April 10, 1939 - FELIX BENEDICTO v. PERFECTO ESPINO

    067 Phil 249

  • G.R. No. 45898 April 10, 1939 - JOVITA JOVEN v. MARCELO T. BONCAN, ET AL.

    067 Phil 252

  • G.R. No. 46530 April 10, 1939 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. CATALINO RABAO

    067 Phil 255

  • G.R. No. 45123 April 12, 1939 - AGRIPINO INFANTE v. MARCOS DULAY

    067 Phil 259

  • G.R. No. 45165 April 12, 1939 - GREGORIA JIMENEZ v. GEROMIMO JIMENEZ

    067 Phil 263

  • G.R. No. 45277 April 12, 1939 - TORIBIO TEODORO v. JUAN POSADAS

    067 Phil 267

  • G.R. No. 45306 April 12, 1939 - JOSUE SONCUYA v. LA URBANA

    067 Phil 271

  • G.R. No. 45365 April 12, 1939 - FULTON IRON WORKS CO. v. SIDNEY C. SCHWARZKOPF

    067 Phil 274

  • G.R. No. 45375 April 12, 1939 - COMMONWEALTH OF THE PHIL. v. GLORIA BALDELLO

    067 Phil 277

  • G.R. No. 45454 April 12, 1939 - EULALIO GARCIA v. SINFOROSA C. DAVID, ET AL.

    067 Phil 279

  • G.R. No. 45515 April 12, 1939 - TOLARAM MENGHRA v. BULCHAND ARACHAND, ET AL.

    067 Phil 286

  • G.R. No. 45742 April 12, 1939 - TIBURCIO MAMUYAC v. PEDRO ABENA

    067 Phil 289

  • G.R. No. 45752 April 12, 1939 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JUAN PERALTA, ET AL.

    067 Phil 293

  • G.R. No. 45821 April 12, 1939 - SOCONY-VACUUM CORPORATION v. LEON C. MIRAFLORES

    067 Phil 304

  • G.R. No. 45899 April 12, 1939 - RAYMUNDO VARGAS v. NIEVES TANCIOCO,, ET AL.

    067 Phil 308

  • G.R. No. 45405 April 13, 1939 - IN RE: ANTONIO FRANCO

    067 Phil 312

  • G.R. No. 45529 April 13, 1939 - VENANCIO QUEBLAR v. LEONARDO GARDUÑO

    067 Phil 316

  • G.R. No. 46428 April 13, 1939 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. IRINEO TUMLOS

    067 Phil 320

  • G.R. No. 45253 April 14, 1939 - FIDELITY AND SURETY COMPANY OF THE PHIL. v. ISABELO G. SANCHEZ, ET AL.

    067 Phil 323

  • G.R. No. 45310 April 14, 1939 - MARCOS J. ROTEA v. FRANCISCA DELUPIO

    067 Phil 330

  • G.R. No. 45400 April 14, 1939 - MARCIANA LUNASCO v. VETERANS ADMINISTRATION

    067 Phil 333

  • G.R. No. 45536 April 14, 1939 - PEDRO AMANTE v. SERAFIN P. HILADO

    067 Phil 338

  • G.R. No. 45601 April 14, 1939 - TAVERA-LUNA v. MARIANO NABLE

    067 Phil 340

  • G.R. No. 45687 April 14, 1939 - CARIDAD ESTATE OF CAVITE, INC. v. VICENTE AVILA

    067 Phil 345

  • G.R. No. 45931 April 14, 1939 - URBANO SERRANO v. VICENTE DE LA CRUZ

    067 Phil 348

  • G.R. No. 45340 April 15, 1939 - MARCELA BALLESTEROS v. VETERANS ADMINISTRATION

    067 Phil 351

  • G.R. No. 45430 April 15, 1939 - TERESA GARCIA v. LUISA GARCIA, ET AL.

    067 Phil 353

  • G.R. No. 45643 April 16, 1939 - RAYMUNDO CORDERO v. COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE OF LAGUNA, Respondents.

    067 Phil 358

  • G.R. No. 45576 April 19, 1939 - MAXIMIANO FUENTES v. JUSTICE OF THE PEACE OF PILA, LAGUNA, ET AL.

    067 Phil 364

  • G.R. No. 45248 April 18, 1939 - VICENTE REYES VILLAVICENCIO v. SANTIAGO QUINIO

    067 Phil 367

  • G.R. No. 45418 April 18, 1939 - AMBROSIO RAMOS, ET AL. v. H. A. GIBBON, ET AL.

    067 Phil 371

  • G.R. No. 45701 April 18, 1939 - TIRSO GARCIA v. TY CAMCO SOBRINO

    067 Phil 384

  • G.R. No. 45721 April 18, 1939 - MELCHOR LAMPREA v. DIRECTOR OF LANDS, ET AL.

    067 Phil 388

  • G.R. No. 45803 April 18, 1939 - VICENTA C. VDA. DE GUIDOTE v. BANK OF THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS

    067 Phil 391

  • G.R. No. 45923 Abril 18, 1939 - CHOA FUN v. EL SECRETARIO DEL TRABAJO

    067 Phil 394

  • G.R. No. 46015 April 18, 1939 - LIBERATO JIMENEZ v. INES DE CASTRO, ET AL.

    067 Phil 398

  • G.R. No. 46043 April 18, 1939 - TERESA LANDRITO, ET AL. v. RICARDO GONZALEZ, ET AL.

    067 Phil 401

  • G.R. No. 46134 April 18, 1939 - NICOLASA DE GUZMAN v. ANGELA LIMCOLIOC

    067 Phil 404

  • G.R. No. 46317 April 18, 1939 - JUSTO QUIMING v. MARIANO L. DE LA ROSA

    067 Phil 406

  • G.R. No. 45290 April 19, 1939 - GOVERNMENT OF THE PHIL. v. PAULA MERCADO

    067 Phil 409

  • G.R. No. 45126 April 19, 1939 - DIRECTOR OF LANDS v. ALBINO PANUNCIO

    067 Phil 414

  • G.R. No. 45166 April 19, 1939 - LEON C. VIARDO v. GALICANO GUTIERREZ

    067 Phil 416

  • G.R. No. 45190 April 19, 1939 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ANTONIO APAREJADO, ET AL.

    067 Phil 418

  • G.R. No. 45531 April 19, 1939 - FRED OMNAS, ET AL. v. PABLO S. RIVERA

    067 Phil 419

  • G.R. No. 46002 April 19, 1939 - SALVACION RIOSA v. STILIANOPULOS, INC.

    067 Phil 422

  • G.R. No. 45715 April 20, 1939 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. REMIGIO OLIVERIA

    067 Phil 427

  • G.R. No. 45934 April 20, 1939 - FORTUNATO DIAZ v. PEOPLE OF THE PHIL.

    067 Phil 432

  • G.R. No. 45980 April 20, 1939 - MARIA MARTINEZ v. YEK TONG LIN FIRE & MARINE INSURANCE CO.

    067 Phil 436

  • G.R. No. 45493 April 21, 1939 - GERARDO GARCIA v. ANGEL SUAREZ

    067 Phil 441

  • G.R. No. 45595 April 21, 1939 - JUAN POSADAS, ET AL. v. GO HAP, ET AL.

    067 Phil 446

  • G.R. No. 46046 April 21, 1939 - PROCOPIO GAQUIT v. DOROTEO CONUI

    067 Phil 449

  • G.R. No. 46570 April 21, 1939 - JOSE D. VILLENA v. SECRETARY OF THE INTERIOR

    067 Phil 451

  • G.R. No. 45449 April 22, 1939 - TOMAS S. OCEJO v. CONSUL GENERAL OF SPAIN

    067 Phil 475

  • G.R. No. 46330 April 22, 1939 - IRENEO ABAD SANTOS, ET AL. v. PROVINCE OF TARLAC, ET AL.

    067 Phil 480

  • G.R. No. 45413 April 24, 1939 - LA YEBANA, CO., INC. v. JULIO L. VALENZUELA, ET AL.

    067 Phil 482

  • G.R. No. 45666 April 24, 1939 - ALFREDO VALENZUELA v. PEOPLE OF THE PHIL.

    067 Phil 490

  • G.R. No. 45978 April 24, 1939 - MIGUELA ELEAZAR v. EUSEBIO ELEAZAR

    067 Phil 497

  • G.R. No. 46029 April 24, 1939 - NATIONAL LOAN AND INVESTMENT BOARD v. LUIS MENESES

    067 Phil 498

  • G.R. No. 45369 April 25, 1939 - ISABELA SUGAR CO., INC. v. ALFFREDO L. YATCO

    067 Phil 500

  • G.R. No. 45544 April 25, 1939 - COLLECTOR OF INTERNAL REVENUE v. LORENZO ECHARRI

    067 Phil 502

  • G.R. No. 45624 April 25, 1939 - GEORGE LITTON v. HILL & CERON, ET AL.

    067 Phil 509

  • G.R. No. 45739 April 26, 1939 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. SOTERO PEJI BAUTISTA

    067 Phil 518

  • G.R. No. 45755 April 25, 1939 - ASUNCION ABAD v. AMANDO AQUINO

    067 Phil 526

  • G.R. No. 45964 April 26, 1939 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. RESTITURO FALLER

    067 Phil 529

  • G.R. No. 46035 April 25, 1939 - DIRECTOR OF LANDS v. PHILIPPINE NATIONAL BANK, ET AL.

    067 Phil 531

  • G.R. No. 46260 April 26, 1939 - PABLO TAMAYO v. FRANCISCO E. JOSE, ET AL.

    067 Phil 536

  • G.R. No. 46356 April 25, 1939 - FRUCTUOSA VELASCO VDA. DE TALAVERA v. CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION FOR WOMEN

    067 Phil 538

  • G.R. No. 45403 April 26, 1939 - NATIONAL CITY BANK OF NEW YORK v. NEW YORK TONG LIN & MARINE INSURANCE COMPANY

    067 Phil 544

  • G.R. No. 45519 April 26, 1939 - RUFINA SALAO, ET AL. v. TEOFILO C. SANTOS, ET AL.

    067 Phil 547

  • G.R. No. 45521 April 26, 1939 - JOSE MORENO, ET AL. v. BONIFACIO SAN MATEO, ET AL.

    067 Phil 551

  • G.R. No. 45598 April 26, 1939 - TAN PHO v. HASSAMAL DALAMAL

    067 Phil 555

  • G.R. No. 45614 April 26, 1939 - NORBERTO FORDAN v. ANTONIO LUZON

    067 Phil 559

  • G.R. No. 45662 April 26, 1939 - ENRIQUE CLEMENTE v. DIONISIO GALVAN

    067 Phil 565

  • G.R. No. 46366 April 26, 1939 - PHILIPPINE NATIONAL BANK v. PARDO Y ROBLES HERMANOS, ET AI. .

    067 Phil 570

  • G.R. No. 46492 April 26, 1939 - RAMON SOTELO v. ARSENIO P. DIZON, ET AL.

    067 Phil 573

  • G.R. No. 45173 April 27, 1939 - RED LINE TRANSPORTATION CO., INC. v. BACHRACH MOTOR COMPANY, INC.

    067 Phil 577

  • G.R. No. 45359 April 27, 1939 - JACINTO M. DEL SAZ OROZCO, ET AL. v. SALVADOR ARANETA

    067 Phil 591

  • G.R. No. 45506 April 27, 1939 - FORTUNATO MANZANERO v. REMEDIOS BONGON

    067 Phil 595

  • G.R. No. 45508 April 27, 1939 - SEGUNDA DEVEZA v. ERIBERTO BALMEO, ET AL.

    067 Phil 603

  • G.R. No. 45534 April 27, 1939 - JOSEFA RIZAL MERCADO, ET AL. v. ALFREDO HIDALGO REAL

    067 Phil 608

  • G.R. No. 45694 April 27, 1939 - FRANCISCO YATCO v. EL HOGAR FILIPINO

    067 Phil 610

  • G.R. No. 45724 April 27, 1939 - IGNACIO DE GUZMAN, ET AL. v. TEODORO IBEA, ET AL.

    067 Phil 633

  • G.R. No. 45741 April 27, 1939 - F. Y A. GARCIA DIEGO v. GLORIA DE ANTONIO, ET AL.

    067 Phil 637

  • G.R. No. 45185 April 28, 1939 - GOVERNMENT OF THE PHIL. v. SALUD ALDEGUER VIUDA DE ROMERO SALAS

    067 Phil 643

  • G.R. No. 45464 April 28, 1939 - JOSUE SONCUYA v. CARMEN DE LUNA

    067 Phil 646

  • G.R. No. 45625 April 28, 1939 - MARGARITA VILLANUEVA v. JUAN SANTOS

    067 Phil 648

  • G.R. No. 45761 April 28, 1939 - JULIA DEL ROSARIO, ET AL. v. ANTONIO DEL ROSARIO, ET AL.

    067 Phil 652

  • G.R. No. 45266 April 29, 1939 - SIMEON RAEL v. PROVINCIAL GOVERNMENT OF RIZAL

    067 Phil 654

  • G.R. No. 45410 April 29, 1939 - MACONDRAY & CO., INC. v. JOSE BERNABE

    067 Phil 658

  • G.R. No. 45412 April 29, 1939 - COSME CARLOS, ET AL. v. COSME CARLOS

    067 Phil 662

  • G.R. No. 45425 April 29, 1939 - JOSE GATCHALIAN v. COLLECTOR OF INTERNAL REVENUE

    067 Phil 666

  • G.R. No. 45479 April 29, 1939 - FELIX ATACADOR v. HILARION SILAYAN

    067 Phil 674

  • G.R. No. 45597 April 29, 1939 - MACARIA PASCUAL v. LORENZA RAMIREZ, ET AL.

    067 Phil 678

  • G.R. No. 45965 April 29, 1939 - AMPARO GONZALEZ, ET AL. v. PRIMITIVO TRINIDAD, ET AL.

    067 Phil 682

  • G.R. No. 46003 April 29, 1939 - SIXTO DE LA COSTA, ET AL. v. BONIFACIO CLEOFAS

    067 Phil 686

  • G.R. No. 46026 April 29, 1939 - JESUSA PORTILLO-RIVERA v. STRACHAN, MACMURRAY & CO., LTD.

    067 Phil 694

  • G.R. No. 46604 April 29, 1939 - FRANCISCO MORFE, ET AL. v. JUSTICE OF THE PEACE OF CALOOCAN, ET AL.

    067 Phil 696

  •  





     
     

    G.R. No. 45666   April 24, 1939 - ALFREDO VALENZUELA v. PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. <br /><br />067 Phil 490

     
    PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

    EN BANC

    [G.R. No. 45666. April 24, 1939.]

    ALFREDO VALENZUELA, Petitioner, v. THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondent.

    Eugenio S Estayo for Petitioner.

    Solicitor-General Tuason for Respondent.

    SYLLABUS


    1. PENSION LAW OF THE UNITED STATES; PENAL PROVISIONS APPLICABLE TO THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS. — In People v. Tan (51 Phil., 71), and People v. Peralta (G. R. No. 34012 [56 Phil., 800]), this court applied to the Philippine Islands the penal provisions of the Act of Congress of July 16, 1918, entitled "An Act to Pension Widows and Minor Children of Officers and Enlisted Men Who Served in the War with Spain, Philippine Insurrection, or in China" and of the Act of Congress of June 7, 1924, entitled "World War Veterans’ Act" and held that the penal provisions of said laws were applicable to the Philippine Islands notwithstanding the provision of section 5 of the Jones Law "That the statutory laws of the United States hereafter enacted shall not apply to the Philippine Island, except when they specifically so provide, or it is so provided in this Act."cralaw virtua1aw library

    2. ID.; ID. — The penal provisions contained in section 309 of the "World War Adjusted Compensation Act.’, which is section 619, Title 38, of the United States Code, are applicable to the Philippine Islands, because otherwise the American and Filipino veterans found in this territory would not find protection and receive the privileges conferred upon them by law in cases where, as in the one under consideration, other persons appropriate for themselves the loan or compensation to which the former are by law entitled.

    3. ID.; ID.; DOUBLE JEOPARDY. — The defense of double jeopardy interposed by the accused is devoid of writ Section 28 of General Orders, No. 58, provides that the dismissal of a criminal case without the consent of the accused, after he has been prosecuted upon a valid complaint or information sufficient in form and substance and after he has been informed thereof and made his plea thereto, is a bar to his prosecution anew for the same offense, whether attempted or frustrated The accused, however, cannot involve the defense established in this section because it does not appear that he had pleaded to the information and because the same offense or violation of law is not involved, the first information having charged him with estafa, whereas in the second he was charged with a violation of the "World War Adjusted Compensation Act."


    D E C I S I O N


    IMPERIAL, J.:


    This is a petition for certiorari filed by the accused to review the decision of the Court of Appeals affirming the judgment of the Court of First Instance of Pangasinan, which found him guilty of a violation of section 309 of the Act of Congress of the United States of America, entitled "World War Adjusted Compensation Act", and sentenced him to one month and one day of imprisonment, to indemnify Silvestre Parido in the sum of P300 and to pay the costs.

    Silvestre Parido, the offended party, had been during the world war a member of the infantry regiment of the United States Army and as such had obtained the right to compensation under the aforesaid law. Sometime in September, 1932, in the municipality of Lingayen, province of Pangasinan, he availed of the services of the accused to help him obtain said compensation. The accused prepared an application for a loan of $358.50, equivalent to P717, which was filed with the Veterans Administration after it was signed by the offended party. Subsequently there was issued in his favor warrant No. 19869 of this United States Treasury. This warrant was sent by mail to the offended party, addressed to Post Office Box No. 10 of Lingayen, Pangasinan, which had been rented by the accused. On the 13th of the same month the accused and the offended party went together to the office of the postmaster of Lingayen and after the offended party had signed the warrant, the accused turned it over to the said official The latter cashed the warrant and handed the money to the accused, the offended party not then knowing the exact amount which the accused had received. The accused thereafter delivered to the offended party P417 only, keeping the balance of P300. Four days later the accused obtained from the offended party a loan ’for P10. Some days afterwards a relative of the offended party saw the loan application which the latter had signed and informed him that he had obtained a greater amount. It was then that the offended party learned that the accused had appropriated for himself the sum of P300. The offended party demanded of the accused to return the latter amount, but the accused refused alleging that the amount was his for services which he had rendered to the offended party. Thereupon the offended party filed a claim against the accused in the office of the Veterans Administration. On February 13, 1934, the manager of the latter office wrote the offended party to the effect that, in the opinion of the attorney of said office, no action could be taken against the accused for having appropriate(l the sum of $158.50 from the loan granted to the offended party, because the penal provisions of the ’World War Adjusted Compensation Act" were not applicable to the Philippine Island. Thereupon the offended party went to the provincial fiscal who filed an information against the accused charging him with the commission of the crime of estafa for having illegally appropriated the sum of P300 without the knowledge and consent of the offended party and to the latter’s prejudice. The information thus lodged was later dismissed upon petition of the fiscal and without the consent of the accused. It does not appear at what stage of the case the court issued the order of dismissal, hence, it is not known whether the accused had already been arraigned and had already pleaded thereto. Thereafter the fiscal filed another information against the accused for a violation of section 309 of the Act of Congress of the United States of America, entitled "World War Adjusted Compensation Act." In this second information it was simply alleged that the accused violated the said law by illegally collecting from the offended party the sum of P300, which was a part of the 717 obtained by way of loan under the aforesaid law. The accused interposed a demurrer to the information on the ground: (1) that the court had no jurisdiction to take cognizance of the alleged violation, and (2) that the facts alleged in the information do not constitute a public offense in the Philippine Islands. Upon the submission of the demurrer, the court overruled the same and after trial the accused was found guilty of the violation alleged in the information and was sentenced to one month and one day of imprisonment, to indemnify the offended party in the sum of P300 and to pay the costs. On appeal to the Court of Appeals, the latter affirmed in the manner already mentioned.

    The accused contends that the Court of Appeals erred: (1) In holding that the "World War Adjusted Compensation Act" of the United States Congress is applicable to the Philippines, and in holding that under the facts alleged in the information and established by the prosecution, he is guilty of a violation of section 309 of the said law; and (2) in not sustaining his defense of double jeopardy under section 1 (20), Article III, of the Constitution, and in holding that the Jones Law is the one applicable.

    Section 309 of the "World War Adjusted Compensation Act", which is in turn section 619, Title 38, of the United States Code, under which the second information was filed, reads as follows:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

    "Any person who charges or collects, or attempts to charge or collect, either directly or indirectly, any fee or other compensation for assisting in any manner a veteran or his dependents in obtaining any of the benefits, privileges, or loans to which he is entitled under the provisions of this chapter shall, upon conviction thereof be subject to a fine of not more than $500, or imprisonment for more than one year, or both. (May 19, 1924, c. 157, par. 309,43 Stat., 125.)"

    Under this legal provision there is no doubt that the accused is guilty of the violation with which he is charged because it has been established by the prosecution that he collected from the offended party the sum of P300, which was a part of the P717 which the latter had obtained by way of loan from the Veterans Administration, as compensation for services which he rendered to the offended party for helping the latter obtain said loan.

    But counsel for the accused contends that section 309 is neither in force nor applicable in the Philippines under the provision of section 1003, Title 48, of the United, States Code to the effect that "The statutory laws of the United States enacted subsequent to August 29, 1916, shall not apply to the Philippine Islands, except when they specifically so provide, or it is so provided in this chapter." We are of the opinion that the contention is unsound. While it is true that the "World War Adjusted Compensation Act ’ does not contain any provision extending its language to the Philippines, nevertheless, being a law enacted for the benefit of all the veterans who have taken part in the world war and there being in this country American and Filipino veterans who are entitled to the privileges and benefits granted therein, it is obvious that the law should be understood as extended to the Philippines, otherwise these beneficiaries would be outside its scope and would be without any protection.

    In People v. Tan (51 Phil., 71), and People v. Peralta (G. R. No. 34012 [51 Phil., 800]), this court applied to the Philippine Islands the penal provisions of the Act of Congress of July 16, 1918, entitled "An Act to Pension Widows and Minor Children of Officers and Enlisted Men Who Served in the War with Spain, Philippine Insurrection, or in China" and of the Act of Congress of June 7, 1924, entitled "World War Beterans’ Act" and we held that the penal provisions of said laws were applicable to the Philippine Islands notwithstanding the provision of section 5 of the Jones Law "That the statutory laws of the United States hereafter enacted shall not apply to the Philippine Is ands, except when they specifically so provide, or it is so provided in this Act." In the first of the cited cases, in interpreting the purposes of the Act of Congress of July 16, 19 8, it was said:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

    "The pension granted by the above quoted enactment is in consideration of services rendered by officers and soldiers of the United States Army and Navy in the war with Spain, in the Philippine insurrection, or in China. Such services are therefore military in character. This being so, the pension granted in consideration of military service is likewise military.

    "The object of the pension is the protection of the widows and minor children of such officers and soldiers as come under the conditions specified by the law. This act of humanity and justice on the part of the Federal Government cannot but redound to the benefit of the United States Army and Navy, by encouraging their officers and soldiers to continue in the service, and those who feel a vocational leaning towards the militia, to enter it, since the future of their wives and children is assured in case of death.

    "From this it follows that while the prime object of the Pension Act in question is the protection of the widows a minor children of the officers and soldiers of the Unit States Army and Navy who served actively during the war with Spain, in the Philippine insurrection, or in China, said enactment also tends to maintain and preserve said Army and Navy, and it may properly be said that it is an Act for the maintenance of these military institutions.

    "In the case of Tan Te v. Franklin Bell (27 Phil., 354), the following doctrine, as expressed in the syllabus, was laid down:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

    "‘LAWS RELATING TO THE ARMY. — Laws for the creation, regulation, and maintenance of the Army, not specifically limited to certain districts, are of nation-wide application and extend to all territory under the jurisdiction of the United States. Subsequent laws of Congress organizing territorial governments do not repeal such laws by implication.’

    "This doctrine is applicable to the present case, since, as we said, the indirect object of the law in question is the maintenance of the Army and Navy.

    "While it is true that this Pension Act was promulgated subsequent to the Jones Law, yet its caption, title, and first section which speaks of widows and minor children of officers and soldiers who served during the war with Spain, in the Philippine insurrection, or in China, refers to Americans as well as to Filipinos’ and is an adequate expression of the applicability of said law to these Islands."cralaw virtua1aw library

    On the authority of the doctrines laid down in the aforesaid cases and in that of Tan Te v. Bell, supra, we held that the penal provisions contained in section 309 of the "World War Adjusted Compensation Act", which is section 619, Title 38, of the United States Code, are applicable to the Philippine Islands, because otherwise the American and Filipino veterans found in this territory would not find protection and receive the privileges conferred upon them by law in cases where, as in the one before us, other persons appropriate for themselves the loan or compensation to which the former are by law entitled.

    We are likewise of the opinion that the defense of double jeopardy interposed by the accused is devoid of merit. Section 28 of General Orders, No. 58, provides that the dismissal of a criminal case without the consent of the accused, after he has been prosecuted upon a valid complaint or information sufficient in form and substance and after he has been informed thereof and made his plea thereto, is a bar to his prosecution anew for the same offense, whether attempted or frustrated. The accused, however, cannot invoke the defense established in this section because it does not appear that he had pleaded to the information and because the same offense or violation of law is not involved, the first information having charged him with estafa, whereas in the second he was charged with a violation of the "World War Adjusted Compensation Act."cralaw virtua1aw library

    In view of the foregoing, the petition for certiorari is denied, with the costs to the accused-petitioner. So ordered.

    Avanceña, C.J., Villa-Real, Diaz, Laurel, Concepcion and Moran, JJ., concur.

    G.R. No. 45666   April 24, 1939 - ALFREDO VALENZUELA v. PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. <br /><br />067 Phil 490


    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