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. 46652   September 23, 1939 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. CASIMIRO CONCEPCION<br /><br />068 Phil 530

     
    PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

    FIRST DIVISION

    [G.R. No. 46652. September 23, 1939.]

    THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. CASIMIRO CONCEPCION, Defendant-Appellant.

    E. G. Cammayo for Appellant.

    Solicitor-General Ozaeta and Assistant Attorney Amparo for Appellee.

    SYLLABUS


    1. CRIMINAL LAW AND PROCEDURE; "ESTAFA" IN THE SUM OF P400: HABITUAL DELINQUENCY; SUBSIDIARY IMPRISONMENT. — The estafa committed by the accused is penalized by article 315, paragraph 3, of the Revised Penal Code, with arresto mayor in its maximum period to prision correccional in its minimum period, by reason of the amount thereof. The mitigating circumstance of plea of guilty being compensated by the aggravating circumstance of recidivism, which is necessarily inferred from the allegation of habitual delinquency, the penalty should be imposed in its medium period, which is from one year and one day to one year and eight months of prision correccional. The subsidiary imprisonment imposed is not correct because by adding the principal and additional penalties, the resulting penalty is higher than that of prision correccional (Edet v. Director of Prisons, G. R. No. 45572, June 10, 1937). There is no error whatsoever in the appreciation of habitual delinquency nor in the imposition of the additional penalty.

    2. ID.; ID.; ID.; ARTICLE 70 OF THE REVISED PENAL CODE AS AMENDED BY SECTION 2 OF COMMONWEALTH ACT NO. 217. — The accused has been prosecuted in several other criminal cases and he likewise pleaded guilty in all of them. In the service of the penalties imposed in this and in the other cases, the rules prescribed in article 70, as amended, must be observed, and pursuant to the provisions contained in the paragraphs quoted in the decision, the accused should not serve a penalty of imprisonment for more than threefold the length of time corresponding to the most severe of the penalties imposed upon him in all of said cases and the maximum period of the penalty to be served by him shall in no case exceed forty years.


    D E C I S I O N


    IMPERIAL, J.:


    The accused appealed from the judgment rendered by the Court of First Instance of Manila which found him guilty of the crime of estafa in the sum of P400 and sentenced him to six months and one day of prision correccional, to indemnify the offended party in the above-stated sum, with the corresponding subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency, and to pay the costs. Upon arraignment, the accused voluntarily pleaded guilty. The court likewise declared him to be a habitual delinquent, in accordance with the allegations of the information and, considering as only three the seven previous convictions specified in the information, imposed upon him the additional penalty of six years and one day of prision mayor, pursuant to subsection 5, paragraph (b), of article 62 of the Revised Penal Code.

    In the memorandum filed by him, counsel de oficio submits that the judgment appealed from is in accordance with law and recommends that it be affirmed. The Solicitor-General, however, recommends modification of the principal penalty on the ground that it has not been imposed in the corresponding period. The estafa committed by the accused is penalized by article 315, paragraph 3, of the Revised Penal Code, with arresto mayor in its maximum period to prision correccional in its minimum period, by reason of the amount thereof. The mitigating circumstance of plea of guilty being compensated by the aggravating circumstance of recidivism, which is necessarily inferred from the allegation of habitual delinquency, the penalty should be imposed in its medium period, which is from one year and one day to one year and eight months of prision correcional. The subsidiary imprisonment imposed is not correct because by adding the principal and additional penalties, the resulting penalty is higher than that of prision correccional (Edet, etc. v. Director of Prisons, G. R. No. 45572, June 10, 1937). There is no error whatsoever in the appreciation of habitual delinquency nor in the imposition of the additional penalty.

    Article 70 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended by section 2 of Commonwealth Act No. 217, provides, among other things, as follows:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

    "Notwithstanding the provisions of the rule next preceding, the maximum duration of the convict’s sentence shall not be more than threefold the length of time corresponding to the most severe of the penalties imposed upon him. No other penalty to which he may be liable shall be inflicted after the sum total of those imposed equals the said maximum period.

    "Such maximum period shall in no case exceed forty years.

    "In applying the provisions of this rule the duration of perpetual penalties (pena perpetua) shall be computed at thirty years."cralaw virtua1aw library

    The accused has been prosecuted in several other criminal cases and he likewise pleaded guilty in all of them. In the service of the penalties imposed in this and in the other cases. the rules prescribed in article 70, as amended, must be observed, and pursuant to the provisions contained in the above-quoted paragraphs, the accused should not serve a penalty of imprisonment for more than three fold the length of time corresponding to the most severe of the penalties imposed upon him in all of said cases and the maximum period of the penalty to be served by him shall in no case exceed forty years.

    With the modification that the accused is sentenced to one year and one day of prision correccional with the corresponding accessory penalties prescribed by law, and the suppression of the subsidiary imprisonment, the appealed judgment is affirmed in all other respects, with the costs of this instance to the Accused-Appellant. So ordered.

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

    G.R. No. 46652   September 23, 1939 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. CASIMIRO CONCEPCION<br /><br />068 Phil 530


    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