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
 

   
September-1939 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. 46562 September 13, 1939 - BARDWIL BROS. v. PHIL. LABOR UNION

    068 Phil 436

  • G.R. No. 46673 September 13, 1939 - ANDRES P. GOSECO v. COURT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS

    068 Phil 444

  • G.R. No. 45596 September 18, 1939 - MARCOS LIPANA v. DOMlNGO LAO Y OTROS

    068 Phil 451

  • G.R. No. 46412 September 18, 1939 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. MANOJI

    068 Phil 471

  • G.R. No. 46497 September 18, 1939 - ANTONIO S. SANAGUSTIN v. CONRADO BARRIOS

    068 Phil 475

  • G.R. No. 46170 September 20, 1939 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. FERMIN PUNTO

    068 Phil 481

  • G.R. No. 46780 September 20, 1939 - FISCAL OF CAMARINES NORTE v. JUDGE OF FIRST INSTANCE OF CAMARINES NORTE

    068 Phil 483

  • G.R. No. 46108 September 22, 1939 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. DATU GALANTU MEDTED

    068 Phil 485

  • G.R. No. 46109 September 22, 1939 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. NICOLAS CARPIO

    068 Phil 490

  • G.R. No. 46197 September 22, 1939 - KINKWA MERIYASU CO. v. COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS

    068 Phil 501

  • G.R. No. 46302 September 22, 1939 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. TORIBIO C. COSTES

    068 Phil 503

  • G.R. No. 46578 September 22, 1939 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ANICETO MARQUEZ

    068 Phil 506

  • G.R. No. 46580 September 22, 1939 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. PEDRO DE GUZMAN

    068 Phil 508

  • G.R. No. 46602 September 22, 1939 - YAP TAK WING & CO. v. MUNICIPAL BOARD

    068 Phil 511

  • G.R. No. 46686 September 22, 1939 - TRANQUILINO RUBIS v. PHILIPPINE CHARITY SWEEPSTAKES

    068 Phil 515

  • G.R. No. 46715 September 22, 1939 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. EMILIO DE JESUS

    068 Phil 517

  • G.R. No. 46068 September 23, 1939 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. EUSTAQUIO CAROZ

    068 Phil 521

  • G.R. No. 46650 September 23, 1939 - MARIO BENGZON v. AUDITOR GENERAL

    068 Phil 527

  • G.R. No. 46652 September 23, 1939 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. CASIMIRO CONCEPCION

    068 Phil 530

  • G.R. Nos. 46802-46812 September 23, 1939 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. RESURRECCION B. PEÑAS

    068 Phil 533

  • G.R. No. 46739 September 23, 1939 - PAMPANGA BUS CO., INC. v. PAMBUSCO EMPLOYEES UNION

    068 Phil 541

  • G.R. No. 46668 September 26, 1939 - GOVERNMENT OF THE PHIL. v. PAMPANGA SUGAR MILLS

    068 Phil 547

  • G.R. No. 46729 September 25, 1939 - KAPISANAN NG MGA MANGAGAWA SA PANTRANCO v. COURT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS

    068 Phil 552

  • Adm. Case No. 879 September 27, 1939 - PEDRO DE GUZMAN v. TOMAS B. TADEO

    068 Phil 554

  • G.R. No. 46080 September 27, 1939 - GUILLERMO A. CU UNJIENG v. HONGKONG & SHANGHAI BANKING CORP.

    068 Phil 559

  • G.R. No. 46094 September 27, 1939 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. FERNANDO C. QUEBRAL

    068 Phil 564

  • G.R. No. 46237 September 27, 1939 - ROSALIO MARQUEZ v. BERNARDO CASTILLO

    068 Phil 568

  • G.R. No. 46350 September 27, 1939 - TAN CHAY v. GOVERNMENT OF THE PHIL.

    068 Phil 572

  • G.R. No. 46470 September 27, 1939 - JUAN CASTILLO v. DIRECTOR OF LANDS

    068 Phil 577

  • G.R. No. 46539 September 27, 1939 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. VALENTIN DOQUEÑA

    068 Phil 580

  • G.R. Nos. 46553-46555 September 27, 1939 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. LEON FABILLAR

    068 Phil 584

  • G.R. No. 46615 September 27, 1939 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ALBERTO AQUINO

    068 Phil 588

  • G.R. No. 46727 September 27, 1939 - PAMBUSCO EMPLOYEES’ UNION v. COURT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS

    068 Phil 591

  • G.R. No. 46168 September 29, 1939 - INTERNATIONAL HARVESTER CO. OF THE PHIL. v. DELFIN MAHINAY

    068 Phil 597

  • G.R. No. 46336 September 29, 1939 - REVEREND ULRIC ARCAND v. PEOPLE OF THE PHIL.

    068 Phil 601

  • G.R. No. 46458 September 29, 1939 - ERLANGER & GALINGER v. HERMENEGILDO G. ALAGAR

    068 Phil 610

  • G.R. No. 46725 September 29, 1939 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. MAXIMINO AQUINO

    068 Phil 615

  • G.R. No. 46023 September 30, 1939 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JESUS FLORENDO

    068 Phil 619

  • G.R. No. 46252 September 30, 1939 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. LEONOR DE MOLL

    068 Phil 626

  • G.R. No. 46298 September 30, 1939 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. DATU AMBIS

    068 Phil 635

  • G.R. No. 46390 September 30, 1939 - CASIMIRO TIANGCO v. PROCESO FRANCISCO

    068 Phil 639

  • G.R. No. 46396 September 30, 1939 - ALEJANDRO DE GUZMAN v. VISAYAN RAPID TRANSIT CO.

    068 Phil 643

  • G.R. No. 46451 September 30, 1939 - PAZ CHUA v. SECRETARY OF LABOR

    068 Phil 649

  • G.R. No. 46484 September 30, 1939 - SANTIAGO SAMBRANO v. RED LINE TRANSPORTATION CO., INC.

    068 Phil 652

  • G.R. No. 46724 September 30, 1939 - CRESCENCIO REYNES v. ROSALINA BARRERA

    068 Phil 656

  • G.R. No. 46728 September 30, 1939 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. EDUARDO MONTENEGRO

    068 Phil 659

  •  





     
     

    G.R. No. 46715   September 22, 1939 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. EMILIO DE JESUS<br /><br />068 Phil 517

     
    PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

    FIRST DIVISION

    [G.R. No. 46715. September 22, 1939.]

    THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. EMILIO DE JESUS and FRANCISCO DE LA ROSA, Defendants-Appellants.

    Isidro L. Vejunco for Appellants.

    Solicitor-General Ozaeta and Assistant Attorney Rosal for Appellee.

    SYLLABUS


    1. CRIMINAL LAW AND PROCEDURE; "ESTAFA INVOLVING AN AMOUNT WHICH DOES NOT EXCEED P200 PRESENCE OF THE AGGRAVATING CIRCUMSTANCE OF RECIDIVISM AND THE MITIGATING CIRCUMSTANCE OF VOLUNTARY CONFESSION OF GUILT. — According to the provisions of article 315, subsection 4, of the Revised Penal Code, the penalty that should be imposed upon a person found guilty of the crime of estafa, where the amount of the fraud does not exceed P200, is arresto mayor in its medium and maximum periods, that is, from two months and one day to six months, the medium period of said penalty being from three months and eleven days to four months and twenty days. In the case of the appellants, there having been present one aggravating circumstance, which is that of recidivism, and one mitigating circumstance, which is that of voluntary confession of guilt, both of which circumstances should be set off against each other (art. 63, subsec. 4), the principal penalty which should have been imposed upon said appellants is at least three months and eleven days of arresto mayor, and not three months only, as the lower court had imposed upon them.

    2. ID.; ID.; HABITUAL DELINQUENCY. — By reading the information quoted in the decision, it may clearly be seen that the four previous convictions of estafa of the appellant E. de J. can be considered as only three, for the purposes of the law penalizing habitual delinquency, for the reasons stated in the cases of People v. Santiago (55 Phil., 266); People v. Ventura (56 Phil., 1); and People v. Kaw Liong (57 Phil., 839); and it may likewise be seen that the five previous convictions of estafa and theft of the appellant F. de la R. can, in turn, be considered as only three convictions, for the same reasons. Consequently, after considering the question from this viewpoint, the additional penalty that may be imposed upon each of the accused, by virtue of the aforesaid provisions of article 62, subsection 6, paragraph (b), of the Revised Penal Code, is prision mayor in its minimum and medium periods, that is from six years and one day to ten years.


    D E C I S I O N


    DIAZ, J.:


    The question raised before us by the appeal taken by the accused from the judgment of the lower court, sentencing them for estafa to suffer the principal penalty of three months of arresto mayor and an additional penalty of ten years and one day of prision mayor by reason of habitual delinquency, besides indemnifying Toribia Bacos in the sum of P3.80, is whether or not said two penalties are in accordance with law.

    The information charging the appellants with the crime in question, of which it may be truthfully stated that they pleaded guilty upon arraignment, reads as follows:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

    "That on or about December 15, 1938, in the municipality of Pasay, Province of Rizal, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the accused abovenamed, conspiring together and helping each other, by means of false and fraudulent manifestations which they made to Toribia Bacos to the effect that a solitaire ring which was in their possession was genuine and valued at P900 and knowing fully well that such manifestation was false and fraudulent, because said ring was fake with copper setting and false diamond, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously induce said Toribia Bacos to exchange and deliver and in fact she exchanged and delivered a pair of earings, worth P8, a ring worth P4, and an engagement ring worth P1, a gold necklace worth P30 and cash of P0.80 for the said fake solitaire ring, and once in possession of said jewelries and money belonging to Toribia Bacos, the accused above-named, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously, appropriate and convert said jewelries and money to their own use and benefit, to the damage and prejudice of the said owner in the amount of P43.80.

    "That the accused Emilio de Jesus and Francisco de la Rosa are habitual delinquent, having committed the present crime within the period of 10 years from their last release from prison on December 28, 1938. and October 30, 1938, respectively, and having been convicted of estafa and theft by virtue of several final judgments handed down by competent courts within the same period of 10 years, as follows:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

    "EMILIO DE JESUS Y BAUTISTA

    Date of

    commis- Date of Crimes Sentence Dates of

    sion sentence release

    5-4-36 May 22, 1936 Estafa, M. C. D. 3 months and 11 days . . . . (Appealed)

    H-52433

    Appealed and sentenced as follows:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

    June 1, 1936 Estafa, Ct 1st 2 months and 1 day P58 Aug. 12, 1936

    Ins. D-52390 indemnity

    9-8-36 Sept. 16, 1936 Estafa, M. C. D. 2 months and 1 day and 6

    H-61331 years and 1 day addi-

    tional imprisonment,

    and P28 indemnity

    Sept. 17, 1936 Estafa, M. C. D. 2 months and 1 day and 6 (Appealed)

    H-61332 years and 1 day addi-

    tional imprisonment

    Cases Nos. H-61331 and H-61332, appealed

    and sentenced as follows:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

    Oct. 29, 1936 Estafa, Ct. 1st Inst 4 months and 1 day, mas. (Appealed)

    Inst. D-53188. 8 años y 1 dia como pene

    adicional

    Nov. 24, 1936 Estafa, Ct. 1st 3 months and 11 days

    Inst. D-52160.

    Case No. D-53188, appealed and sentenced

    as follows

    Mar. 4, 1937 Estafa, Ct. 1st 4 months and 1 day.

    Inst. D-53188

    6-238 June 3, 1938 Estafa M. C. D. 6 months.

    H-95213

    Case No. H-95054, appealed and sentenced

    as follows:

    "FRANCISCO DE LA ROSA Y GOMEZ

    Dec. 8, 1931 Estafa, M. C.D. 2 months and 1 day, Feb. 18, 1932

    F-48246 and P23.60 indemnity

    Aug. 16, 1933 Theft, M. C. D. 4 months and 1 day, (Appealed

    F-94776 and P20 indemnity

    Oct. 19, 1933 Attempted P200 fine

    estafa, M. C. D.

    F-91955

    Case No. F-94776, appealed and sentenced

    as follows.

    Nov. 15 1933 Hurto, Ct. 1st 6 months and

    Inst D-46442 P20 indemnity

    May 22, 1936 Estafa, M. C. D. 3 months and (Appealed)

    H-52433 and 2 years, 4 months and

    11 days 1 day additional imprison-

    ment for being a habit-

    ual delinquent for the

    third conviction.

    May 25, 1936 Estafa, M. C. D. 3 months and 11 days

    H-50768, and P27 indemnity

    Case No. 52433, appealed and sentenced

    as follows:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

    June 1, 1936 Estafa, Ct. 1st 2 months and 1 day, October 30, 1938

    Inst. D-52390 plus additional penalty

    of 2 years, 4 months and

    1 day and P58 indemnity

    "Contrary to Law."cralaw virtua1aw library

    According to the provisions of article 315, subsection of the Revised Penal Code, the penalty that should be imposed upon a person found guilty of a crime of estafa, where the amount of the fraud does not exceed P200, is arresto mayor its medium and maximum periods, that is, from two months and one day to six months, the medium period of said penalty being from three months and eleven days to four months and 20 days.

    In the case of the appellants, there having been present one aggravating circumstance, which is that of recidivism, and one mitigating circumstance, which is that of voluntary confession of guilt, both of which circumstances should be set off against each other (art. 63, subsec. 4), the principal penalty which should have been imposed upon them is at least three months and eleven days of arresto mayor, and not three months only as the lower court had imposed upon them.

    By reading the information quoted herein, it may clearly be seen that the four previous convictions of estafa of the appellant Emilio de Jesus can be considered as only three, for the purposes of the law penalizing habitual delinquency, for the reasons stated in the cases of People v. Santiago (55 Phil., 266); People v. Ventura (56 Phil., 1); and People v. Kaw Liong (57 .Phil., 839); and it may likewise be seen that the five previous convictions of estafa and theft the appellant Francisco de la Rosa can, in turn, be considered as only three convictions, for the same reasons. Consequently after considering the question from this viewpoint the additional penalty that may be imposed upon each of the accused, by virtue of the aforesaid provisions of article 62, subsection 5, paragraph (b), of the Revised Penal Code, is prision mayor in its minimum and medium periods, that is, from six years and one day to ten years.

    Following the recommendation of the Solicitor-General, which is very well founded, the judgment appealed from is hereby modified so as to impose upon each of the accused-appellants the principal penalty of three months and eleven days of arresto mayor and the additional penalty of six years and one day of prision mayor. Modified as above, said judgment is affirmed in all other respects, without special pronouncement as to costs. So ordered.

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

    G.R. No. 46715   September 22, 1939 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. EMILIO DE JESUS<br /><br />068 Phil 517


    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