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
 

   
May-1939 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. 45383 May 2, 1939 - MARIA V. SERAPIO v. MARIANO SERAPIO, ET AL.

    067 Phil 701

  • G.R. No. 45502 May 2, 1939 - SAPOLIN CO., INC. v. CORNELIO BALMACEDA

    067 Phil 705

  • G.R. No. 45915 May 2, 1939 - ESCOLASTICO BUENAVENTURA v. GERINO Z. LAYLAY

    067 Phil 717

  • G.R. No. 45486 May 3, 1939 - TIBURCIO SUMERA v. EUGENIO VALENCIA

    067 Phil 721

  • G.R. No. 45322 May 4, 1939 - WALTER BULL v. REDO L. YATCO

    067 Phil 728

  • G.R. No. 45524 May 4, 1939 - MUNICIPALITY OF VICTORIAS v. VICTORIAS MILLING CO., INC.

    067 Phil 733

  • G.R. No. 45969 May 4, 1939 - TAN TIAH v. Yu JOSE

    067 Phil 739

  • G.R. No. 45122 May 5, 1939 - VISAYAN SURETY & INSURANCE CORPORATION v. FRUCTUOSA TABARES

    067 Phil 743

  • G.R. No. 45496 May 5, 1939 - ROMAN CATHOLIC ARCHBISHOP OF MANILA v. EL MONTE DE PIEDAD Y CAJA DE AHORROS DE MANILA

    068 Phil 1

  • G.R. No. 45662 May 5, 1939 - JUAN GOROSTIAGA v. MANUELA SARTE

    068 Phil 4

  • G.R. No. 45889 May 5, 1939 - CRISPINO ENRIQUEZ v. PEOPLE OF THE PHIL.

    068 Phil 8

  • G.R. No. 45987 May 5, 1939 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. CAYAT

    068 Phil 12

  • G.R. No. 46405 May 6, 1939 - RAYMUNDO TRANS. CO., INC. v. PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION

    068 Phil 22

  • G.R. No. 45667 May 9, 1939 - HARRY IVES SHOEMAKER v. TONDEÑA

    068 Phil 24

  • G.R. No. 45696 May 9, 1939 - GIL BUENDIA v. VICENTE SOTTO

    068 Phil 31

  • G.R. No. 45865 May 10, 1939 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. TI YEK JUAT

    068 Phil 37

  • G.R. No. 45993 May 11, 1939 - GERONIMO SANTIAGO v. FABIAN R. MILLAR

    068 Phil 39

  • G.R. No. 45318 May 12, 1939 - JACINTO MESINA v. PETRA DELINO

    068 Phil 43

  • G.R. No. 45427 May 12, 1939 - PHIL. NATIONAL BANK v. PHIL. TRUST CO.

    068 Phil 48

  • G.R. No. 45433 May 12, 1939 - ROSARIO GONZALEZ CASTRO VIUDA DE AZAOLA v. GASTON O’FARRELL

    068 Phil 74

  • G.R. No. 45648 May 12, 1939 - DIRECTOR OF LANDS v. ANICETO ABA

    068 Phil 85

  • G.R. Nos. 46119-46121 May 12, 1939 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. IGNACIO BELTRAN

    068 Phil 90

  • G.R. No. 46584 May 13, 1939 - MARIANO MARCOS v. ROMAN A. CRUZ

    068 Phil 96

  • G.R. No. 45616 May 16, 1939 - FELICIANO SANCHEZ v. FRANCISCO ZULUETA

    068 Phil 110

  • G.R. No. 45543 May 17, 1939 - SURIGAO MINE EXPLORATION CO. v. C. HARRIS

    068 Phil 113

  • G.R. No. 46432 May 17, 1939 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. TEODORICO MARTIN

    068 Phil 122

  • G.R. No. 45924 May 18, 1939 - CELESTINO RODRIGUEZ v. EUGENIO YAP

    068 Phil 126

  • G.R. No. 45160 May 23, 1939 - JOSE GREY v. SERAFIN FABIE

    068 Phil 128

  • G.R. Nos. 45705-45707 May 23, 1939 - TEODORA DOMINGO v. MARGARITA DAVID

    068 Phil 134

  • G.R. No. 45842 May 23, 1939 - MARCARET STEWART MITCHELL MCMASTER v. HENRY REISSMANN & CO.

    068 Phil 142

  • G.R. No. 46177 May 23, 1939 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. MELCHOR TAGASA

    068 Phil 147

  • G.R. No. 46437 May 23, 1939 - EUFEMIO P. TESORO v. DIRECTOR OF PRISONS

    068 Phil 154

  • G.R. No. 45213 May 24, 1939 - H. P. L. JOLLYE v. EMETERIO BARCELON

    068 Phil 164

  • G.R. No. 45486 May 24, 1939 - ASIATIC PETROLEUM CO. v. JOSEFA VALENCIA VIUDA DE MOLINA

    068 Phil 172

  • G.R. No. 45218 May 26, 1939 - CONSUELO CEMBRANO v. CARMEN PARDO DE TAVERA DE GONZALEZ

    068 Phil 175

  • G.R. No. 45446 May 25, 1939 - C. N. HODGES v. PEOPLE OF THE PHIL.

    068 Phil 178

  • G.R. No. 45530 May 25, 1939 - CHINA INSURANCE v. Y. CHONG

    068 Phil 189

  • G.R. No. 45615 May 25, 1939 - TEOFILO SINCO v. SILVESTRA TEVES

    068 Phil 200

  • G.R. No. 46000 May 25, 1939 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JOSE M. BAES

    068 Phil 203

  • G.R. No. 46024 May 25, 1939 - SOTERA ARAVEJO v. ALFONSO DORONILA

    068 Phil 210

  • G.R. No. 46078 May 25, 1939 - GREGORIA REYNOSO v. JOSE E. TOLENTINO

    068 Phil 213

  • G.R. No. 45189 May 26, 1939 - PHIL. SUGAR ESTATE DEV’T. CO., INC. v. JUAN POSADAS

    068 Phil 216

  • G.R. No. 45264 May 26, 1939 - JOSEFA CASTELLTORT v. BALBINA PASION

    068 Phil 224

  • G.R. No. 45736 May 26, 1939 - CONCEPCION LOPEZ v. ADELA LOPEZ

    068 Phil 227

  • G.R. No. 46100 May 26, 1939 - ALFREDO HIDALGO RIZAL v. JOSEFA RIZAL MERCADO

    068 Phil 231

  • G.R. No. 43585 May 27, 1939 - RIZALINA DE LA ROSA v. MAXIMIANA EDRALIN

    068 Phil 234

  • G.R. No. 45307 May 27, 1939 - COMPAÑIA GENERAL DE TABACOS DE FILIPINAS v. COLLECTOR OF INTERNAL REVENUE

    068 Phil 238

  • G.R. No. 45324 May 27, 1939 - GOVERNMENT OF THE PHIL. v. FRANCISCO ABADINAS

    068 Phil 254

  • G.R. No. 45374 May 27, 1939 - MANUEL RODRIGUES v. DANIEL TIRONA

    068 Phil 264

  • G.R. No. 45608 May 27, 1939 - JESUS AZCONA v. PACIFIC COMMERCIAL CO.

    068 Phil 269

  • G.R. No. 46248 May 27, 1939 - TIMOTEO TAROMA v. ROMAN A. CRUZ

    068 Phil 281

  • G.R. No. 45350 May 29, 1939 - BACHBACH MOTOR CO. v. ESTEBAN ICARAÑGAL

    068 Phil 287

  • G.R. No. 45121 May 31, 1939 - DEMETRIO GAMBOA v. SERAFIN GAMBOA

    068 Phil 304

  •  





     
     

    G.R. No. 45889   May 5, 1939 - CRISPINO ENRIQUEZ v. PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. <br /><br />068 Phil 8

     
    PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

    FIRST DIVISION

    [G.R. No. 45889. May 5, 1939.]

    CRISPINO ENRIQUEZ, Petitioner-Appellant, v. THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondent-Appellee.

    Rosendo Tansinsin for Petitioner.

    Solicitor General Tuason for Respondent.

    SYLLABUS


    1. WATERS; OBSTRUCTION PLACED ON A NAVIGABLE RIVER OF PUBLIC DOMAIN; FAILURE TO REMOVE OBSTRUCTION; VIOLATION OF ACT NO. 3208. — To the orders issued by the Secretary of Public Works and Communications for the removal, by the petitioner, of the obstruction placed by him on a navigable river of public domain, said petitioner failed to comply; hence he was prosecuted and convicted for violation of section 25-A, Act No. 3208. The period of thirty days given the petitioner by the secretary’s first order was a time fixed by law which could only be extended on the grounds expressed in the law, none of which were shown in this case.

    2. ID.; ID.; ID.; ID.; A PETITION FOR REINVESTIGATION DOES NOT SUSPEND THE RUNNING OF PERIOD. — The petition for reinvestigation does not, ex propio vigore, suspend the running of the period, where no express statement to that effect is made by the secretary; otherwise, by repetition of such pleas, orders of removal may be ignored with impunity to the detriment of public interests, and, as aptly observed by the Court of Appeals, the execution and enforcement of the law will rest at the mercy of its violators.

    3. ID; ID.; ID.; ID.; NATURE OF CASE. — Under the express provision of section 25-A of Act NO. 3208, "any natural or juridical person failing to comply with any legal order of the Secretary of Public Works and Communications for the removal of any obstacle," incurs the penal sanction of section 47 of Act No. 2162. The mere fact that the petitioner denies the closing of the Dalayap river and lays claim of ownership thereover, does not impart civil character upon an act defined as criminal in nature under the law. Such claim is a mere defense which, if sustained, may wipe out the basis of criminal liability.

    4. ID, ID., ID.; ID; CHARACTER OF AUTHORITY CONFERRED UPON THE SECRETARY OF PUBLIC WORKS AND COMMUNICATION. — The authority conferred upon the Secretary of Public Works and Communications "to order the removal of any obstacle to the free course of public waters, canals, ditches, or irrigation systems which may redound to the detriment of public or private rights recognized by the Irrigation Law and its amendments," is purely executive in character.

    5. ID., ID.; ID.; ID.; CONSTITUTIONAL LAW. — Under the law, raises involving constitutional questions, should be appealed directly to this court from the Court of First Instance (section 138, Admn. Code, as amended by Commonwealth Act No. 3). But the appeal was taken to the Court of Appeals, and there no constitutional objection could have been interposed. As we are but reviewing the decision of the Court of Appeals, we cannot pass upon a question that has not been presented therein.


    D E C I S I O N


    MORAN, J.:


    Petitioner, Crispino Enriquez, owns in the barrio of Dalayap, Macabebe, Pampanga, a fishpond comprising two (2) parcels of land over which he holds a certificate of title. According to the findings of the Court of Appeals, these two (2) parcels of land are separated by a portion of the Dalayap river, a navigable stream of public ownership. As the fishpond is enclosed with dikes, a portion of the Dalayap river separating the two (2) parcels is thus cut off and the free course thereof obstructed by said dikes. On March 24, 1934, the Secretary of Public Works and Communications addressed to said petitioner the following communication:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

    "After due investigation by the Bureau of Public Works of the Dalayap river in Macabebe, Pampanga, it was found that you and your wife, Maria Joaquin, have closed said river and appropriated a portion thereof by including it within your fishpond. It was also found that this river is of public ownership and navigable, in view of which its closing is prejudicial to public interests.

    "You are therefore requested to remove the obstruction you have placed on said stream within 30 days from receipt hereof, otherwise, this office will be compelled, much to its regret, to institute judicial action against you under section 1926 of the Administrative Code."cralaw virtua1aw library

    To this communication petitioner, through counsel, replied denying the basic statement contained therein; whereupon the secretary addressed to him on June 16, 1934, another letter ordering him to remove the obstruction immediately. Petitioner then requested for reinvestigation but, in the meantime, took no steps to comply with the order of removal. On August 16, 1934, the provincial fiscal of Pampanga presented in the justice of the peace court of Macabebe an information against the petitioner and his spouse Maria Joaquin, for violation of section 25-A of Act No. 3208. Judgment was there rendered sentencing the accused to pay a fine of fifty pesos (P50) with the subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency. On appeal to the Court of First Instance of Pampanga, the defendants were sentenced to pay a fine of one hundred pesos (P100) each with similar subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency. The Court of Appeals, upon elevation of the case thereto, affirmed this judgment with respect to the petitioner, but acquitted his spouse. The case is now before this court on a writ of certiorari for review of the questions of law.

    Petitioner here reiterates the view that the criminal action instituted against him was premature. This contention rests upon the supposed pendency of his petition for reinvestigation when the information against him was filed. The period of thirty (30) days given the petitioner by the secretary’s order of March 24, 1934, is a time fixed by law. According to section 26-A of Act No. 3208, the secretary "shall give the party concerned a period not to exceed thirty days for the removal of such obstacle" and this period cannot be extended unless "the nature of the construction or some fortuitous cause requires it." Neither of these two grounds for extension is shown here. And, as a matter of fact, no extension has been applied for on either of said grounds. And the fact that the secretary, in his letter of June 16, 1934, ordered the petitioner to remove the obstruction immediately, shows that no extension has ever been intended. The petition for reinvestigation does not, ex propio vigore, suspend the running of the period, where no express statement to that effect is made by the secretary; otherwise by repetition of such pleas, orders of removal may be ignored with impunity to the detriment of public interests, and, as aptly observed by the Court of Appeals, the execution and enforcement of the law will rest at the mercy of its violators.

    It is contended that the case is purely civil in nature, for it involves question of ownership over real property. Under the express provision of section 25-A of Act No. 3208, "any natural or juridical person failing to comply with any legal order of the Secretary of Public Works and Communications for the removal of any obstacle," incurs the penal sanction of section 47 of Act No. 2152. The mere fact that the petitioner denies the closing of the Dalayap river and lays claim of ownership thereover, does not impart civil character upon an act defined as criminal in nature under the law. Such claim is a mere defense which, if sustained, may wipe out the basis of criminal liability.

    Finally, it is argued that section 25-A of Act No. 3208 is an undue delegation of judicial power. This contention is completely untenable, for the authority conferred upon the Secretary of Public Works and Communications "to order the removal of any obstacle to the free course of public waters, canals, ditches, or irrigation systems which may redound to the detriment of public or private rights recognized by the Irrigation Law and its amendments purely executive in character. Besides, this question cannot be raised at this stage of the proceedings. Under the law, cases involving constitutional questions, should be appealed directly to this court from the Court of First Instance (sec. 138, Admn. Code, as amended by Commonwealth Act No. 3). But the appeal was taken to the Court of Appeals, and there no constitutional objection could have been interposed. As we are but reviewing the decision of the Court of Appeals, we cannot pass upon a question that has not been presented therein.

    Judgment is affirmed, with costs against petitioner.

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

    G.R. No. 45889   May 5, 1939 - CRISPINO ENRIQUEZ v. PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. <br /><br />068 Phil 8


    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