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. 46432   May 17, 1939 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. TEODORICO MARTIN<br /><br />068 Phil 122

     
    PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

    SECOND DIVISION

    [G.R. No. 46432. May 17, 1939.]

    THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. TEODORICO MARTIN, Defendant-Appellant.

    Demetrio B. Encarnacion for Appellant.

    Solicitor-General Tuason for Appellee.

    SYLLABUS


    1. PARDON; VENUE IN CASE OF VIOLATION OF PARDON. — While the Court of First Instance of Cavite was the one which imposed on the appellant the penalty of which he was subsequently pardoned, nevertheless the violation of the conditions of that pardon, which is the subject matter of the present prosecution, took place in the Province of Rizal. The present proceeding is not a continuation or a part of the former one. It is a new proceeding, complete in itself and independent of the latter. It refers to other subsequent facts which the law (art. 159 of the Revised Penal Code) punishes as a distinct crime the penalty for which is not necessarily that remitted by the pardon. Held: That the Court of First Instance of Rizal had jurisdiction to take cognizance of this case.

    2. ID.; PRESCRIPTION OF VIOLATION; PENALTY PRESCRIBED FOR VIOLATION. — The penalty prescribed for the violation is the penalty remitted by the pardon (art. 159 of the Revised Penal Code). In the case at bar the penalty remitted was six years, six months and fourteen days, or more than six years. The appellant’s contention that there should be deducted from this remitted penalty the allowance of time provided in article 97 of the Revised Penal Code, is unsound. This allowance is given in consideration of the good conduct of the prisoner while serving his sentence. Not having served this remitted penalty, there is no reason for the allowance, namely, the good conduct of the appellant while serving his sentence. The penalty imposable for the violation being more than six years, this does not prescribe after four years, but after eight, under Act No. 3585. Moreover, the violation in question is penalized by the Revised Penal Code (art. 159 aforesaid), which is not a special law, and the prescription thereof, as regulated by article 90 of the same Code, is ten years. Wherefore, the period of eight years not having elapsed from the time the appellant was found guilty of the crime of attempted robbery in band with injuries by final judgment rendered on October 27, 1932, nor from the time he committed this crime on October 27, 1930, the violation of the conditions of his pardon with which he i8 charged, has not prescribed either under Act No. 3585 or under the Revised Penal Code.


    D E C I S I O N


    AVANCEÑA, C.J. :


    The appellant Teodorico Martin was sentenced in the Court of First Instance of Cavite for the crime of abduction to the penalty of fourteen years, eight months and one day of reclusion temporal, having commenced to serve this sentence on January 17, 1917. On February 5, 1923, after having served eight years, one month and seventeen days, leaving still unserved six years, six months and fourteen days, he was pardoned on condition that he should not again be found guilty of any crime punishable by the laws of the Philippines. Subsequently the appellant was tried for the crime of attempted robbery in band with physical injuries and sentenced, by final judgment dated October 27, 1932, to pay a fine of 330 pesetas, with subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency.

    The appellant is charged with a violation of the conditions of his pardon for having committed the crime for which he was sentenced on October 27, 1932. The Court of First Instance of Rizal, which took cognizance of this case, found him guilty and sentenced him to suffer the penalty which was remitted in the pardon, namely, six years, six months and fourteen days of reclusion temporal.

    It is alleged that the Court of First Instance of Cavite, and not that of Rizal, had jurisdiction to take cognizance of this case. We find no merit in this contention. While the Court of First Instance of Cavite was the one which imposed on the appellant the penalty of which he was subsequently pardoned, nevertheless the violation of the conditions of that pardon, which is the subject matter of the present prosecution, took place in the Province of Rizal. The present proceeding is not a continuation or a part of the former one. It is a new proceeding, complete in itself and independent of the latter. It refers to other subsequent facts which the law (art. 159 of the Revised Penal Code) punishes as a distinct crime the penalty for which is not necessarily that remitted by the pardon.

    The prescription of the violation is another defense put up by the appellant. He contends that this violation being punished with prision correccional in its minimum degree which should be imposed in its medium period, that is, from one year, one month and eleven days to one year, eight months and twenty days (art. 159 of the Revised Penal Code), it prescribes after four years under section 1 of Act No. 3585. This Act provides:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

    "SECTION 1. Violations penalized by special acts shall, unless otherwise provided in such acts, prescribe in accordance with the following rules: (a) after a year for offenses punished only by a fine or by imprisonment for not more than one month, or both; (b) after four years for those punished by imprisonment for more than one month, but less than two years; (c) after eight years for those punished by imprisonment for two year s or more, but less than six years; . . . ."cralaw virtua1aw library

    We likewise find no merit in this defense. In the first place, the penalty prescribed for the violation is not that of prision correccional in its minimum grade, but the penalty remitted by the pardon. Article 159 of the Revised Penal Code reads:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

    "Other cases of evasion of service of sentence. — The penalty of prision correccional in its minimum period shall be imposed upon the convict, who, having been granted conditional pardon by the Chief Executive, shall violate any of the conditions of such pardon. However, if the penalty remitted by the granting of such pardon be higher than six years, the convict shall then suffer the unexpired portion of his original sentence."cralaw virtua1aw library

    In the case at bar the penalty remitted was six years, six months and fourteen days, or more than six years. The appellant’s contention that there should be deducted from this remitted penalty the allowance of time provided in article 97 of the Revised Penal Code, is unsound. This allowance is given in consideration of the good conduct of the prisoner while serving his sentence. Not having served this remitted penalty, there is no reason for the allowance, namely, the good conduct of the appellant while serving his sentence. The penalty imposable for the violation being more than six years, this does not prescribe after four years, but after eight, under the aforesaid Act No. 3585 the pertinent portion of which has been quoted.

    Moreover, the violation in question is penalized by the Revised Penal Code (art. 159 aforesaid), which is not a special law, and the prescription thereof, as regulated by article 90 of the same Code, is ten years.

    Wherefore, the period of eight years not having elapsed from the time the appellant was found guilty of the crime of attempted robbery in band with injuries by final judgment rendered on October 27, 1932, nor from the time he committed this crime on October 27, 1930, the violation of the conditions of his pardon with which he is charged, has not prescribed either under Act No. 3585 or under the Revised Penal Code.

    The appealed judgment is affirmed, with the costs to the appellant. So ordered.

    Villa-Real, Imperial, Diaz, Laurel, Concepcion, and Moran, JJ., concur.

    G.R. No. 46432   May 17, 1939 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. TEODORICO MARTIN<br /><br />068 Phil 122


    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