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. 46728   September 30, 1939 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. EDUARDO MONTENEGRO<br /><br />068 Phil 659

     
    PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

    FIRST DIVISION

    [G.R. No. 46728. September 30, 1939.]

    THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. EDUARDO MONTENEGRO, Defendant-Appellee.

    Solicitor-General Ozaeta and Assistant Solicitor-General Bautista Angelo for Appellant.

    Lamberto Macias for Appellee.

    SYLLABUS


    CRIMINAL LAW AND PROCEDURE; VIOLATION OF SECTION 114, TITLE 38, THE UNITED STATES CODE ANNOTATED; PRESCRIPTION; LAW APPLICABLE. — The prescription of a crime or offense is but the loss or waiver by the State of its right to prosecute an act prohibited and punished by law (People v. Moran, 44 Phil., 387; Santos v. Superintendent of the Philippine Training School for Girls, 65 Phil., 345). On the other hand, the rules on lex fori, lex domicilii and lex loci are not applicable to the case under consideration on the ground that this country is not yet a State independent of the United States of America and because, if section 582, Title 18, were applicable at all, it would be so ex proprio vigore. Referring to the main question, it should be noted that the provisions relative to the limitation established in Act No. 3763 refer to violations punished by special Acts passed by the Philippine Legislature, and the violation imputed to the accused is not included among them. On the contrary, the limitation acknowledged in section 582, Title 18, of the United States Code Annotated, together with the provisos enumerated therein, is applicable to all crimes and offenses penalized by the United States statutes. No sound or convincing reason can be conceived of to justify the non application of said section 582 to offenses committed within this jurisdiction and punished by statutes promulgated by the United States Congress. An opinion to the contrary would lead to the inexplicable paradox that if the accused had committed the offense in a territory of the United States and were tried therein, he would be acquitted for the reason that the statute would be applicable; while he would necessarily be convicted of the same offense if he committed it and were prosecuted here, notwithstanding the fact that the offense is defined and penalized by the same statute. Reasons of high sense of justice demand that the accused be granted the same kind of treatment as any other violator of the same law residing and tried in a United States territory. Therefore, section 582, Title 18, of the United States Code Annotated, is applicable to the violation imputed to the accused, the order appealed from is in accordance with law, and the assignments of error relied upon by the fiscal are unfounded.


    D E C I S I O N


    IMPERIAL, J.:


    The accused was charged in the Court of First Instance of Oriental Negros with a violation of section 114, Title 38, of the United States Code Annotated, for having collected, in or about the month of September, 1932, in the municipality of Dumaguete, Province of Oriental Negros the sum of $700 equivalent to P1,400 from Valentina Calugcugan by reason of his having acted as attorney or agent of the latter in the filing and prosecution of her claim for pension earned upon the death of her husband Lorenzo Yrad, a soldier in the Philippine Scouts, when the Federal Government of the United States made the first remittance of the sum of $1,386.60 on account of said pension, the compensation collected by the accused being in excess of that permitted by law, and the violation having been discovered only in the month of August, 1937. In the justice of the Dumaguete, where the original information was filed, the accused interposed a demurrer and filed a motion for dismissal based, respectively on the grounds that the courts of this country have no jurisdiction to try the alleged offense and that the same, assuming that it had been committed and is cognizable here, has already prescribed. Both Pleadings were Overruled for lack of merit. The fiscal later amended the information by making it appear that the Plaintiff is the People of the Philippines instead of the Government of the United States of America. Believing that the original information was substantially amended and abandoned, the Court of First Instance refrained from deciding the demurrer and the motion for dismissal interposed against the original information. When the case was called for trial, the accused prayed that his demurrer and motion for dismissal be considered reproduced which motion was granted by the Court of First Instance. The court overruled the demurrer but sustained the motion for dismissal on the ground that the offense had already prescribed and, consequently, the case was dismissed, with the costs de oficio. The motion for reconsideration filed by the fiscal having been denied, he interposed the present appeal.

    The only question discussed in the two assignments of error submitted by the fiscal is whether or not the offense charged has already prescribed and whether or not the court correctly dismissed the information.

    The pertinent portion of section 114, Title 38, of the United States Code Annotated, reads as follows:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

    "The agent or attorney of record in the prosecution of the case may cause to be filed with the Commissioner of Pensions, articles of agreement, without additional cost to the claimant, setting forth the fee agreed upon by the parties which agreement shall be executed in the presence of and certified by some officer competent to administer oaths. In all cases where application is made for pension, and no agreement is filed with the commissioner as herein provided, the fee shall be $10 and no more. . .

    ". . . Any agent or attorney or other person instrumental in prosecuting any claim for pension, who shall directly or indirectly contract for, demand or receive or retain any greater compensation for his services or instrumentality in prosecuting a claim for pension than is herein provided, or for payment thereof at any other time or in any other manner than is herein provided, or who shall wrongfully withhold from a pensioner or claimant the whole or any part of the pension or claim allowed and due such pensioner or claimant, or any agent, attorney, or other person instrumental in prosecuting any claim for increase of pension on account of the increase or disability for which pension was allowed, who shall directly or indirectly contract for, demand, receive, or retain any compensation for such services, except as hereinbefore provided, shall be deemed guilty of a misdemeanor, and upon conviction thereof shall, for each and every such offense, be fined not exceeding $500 or imprisoned, not exceeding two years, or both, in the discretion of the court. (R. S., sec. 4786; July 4, 1884, c. 181, sec. 4; 23 Stat. 99; March 3, 1891, c 548; 26 Stat., 1082.)"

    Section 582, Title 18, of the same United States Code Annotated, provides, in part, as follows:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

    SEC. 582. Offenses not capital. — No person shall be prosecuted, tried, or punished for any offense, not capital, except as provided in section 584 of this title, unless the indictment is found, or the information is instituted, within three years next after such offense shall have been committed: . . .

    It is admitted that the offense under consideration is not among those denominated as capital offenses, nor among the exemptions enumerated in section 584 of the same title. The pertinent part of section 1 of Act No. 3763 provides as follows:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

    "Violations penalized by special acts shall, unless otherwise provided in such acts, prescribe in accordance with the following rules:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

    x       x       x


    "(c) After eight years for those punished by imprisonment for two years or more, but less than six years;"

    The fiscal contends that the statute of limitations applicable is the above-quoted portion of Act No. 3763, while the accused maintains that it should be section 582, Title IX, of the United States Code Annotated. It is admitted that if the former statute were the one applicable, the appealed order should be reversed and the case tried on the merits, while if the latter statute were the one applicable the appeal must be dismissed for lack of merit. Therefore the question to be determined is which of said two statutes should govern and decide the issue.

    It is well settled that the prescription of a crime or offense is but the loss or waiver by the State of its right to prosecute an act prohibited and punished by law (People v. Moran, 44 Phil., 387; Santos v. Superintendent of the Philippine Training School for Girls, 55 Phil., 345). On the other hand, the rules on lex fori, lex domicilii and lex loci are not applicable to the case under consideration on the ground that this country is not yet a State independent of the United States of America and because, if section 582, Title 18, were applicable at all, it would be so ex proprio vigore. Referring to the main question, it should be noted that the provisions relative to the limitation established in Act No. 3763 refer to violations punished by special Acts passed by the Philippine Legislature, and the violation imputed to the accused is not included among them. On the contrary, the limitation acknowledged in section 582, Title 18, of the United States Code Annotated, together with the provisos enumerated therein, is applicable to all crimes and offenses penalized by the United States statutes. We cannot conceive of any sound or convincing reason justifying the nonapplication of said section 582 to offenses committed within this jurisdiction and punished by statutes promulgated by the United States Congress. An opinion to the contrary would lead to the inexplicable paradox that if the accused had committed the offense in a territory of the United States and were tried therein, he would be acquitted for the reason that the statute would be applicable; while he would necessarily be convicted of the same offense if he committed it and were prosecuted here, notwithstanding the fact that the offense is defined and penalized by the same statute. Reasons of high sense of justice demand that the accused be granted the same kind of treatment as any other violator of the same law residing and tried in a United States territory. We conclude, therefore, that section 582, Title 18, of the United States Code Annotated, is applicable to the violation imputed to the accused, that the order. appealed from is in accordance with law, and that the assignments of error relied upon b the fiscal are unfounded.

    The order appealed from is affirmed, with the costs of this instance de oficio. So ordered.

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

    G.R. No. 46728   September 30, 1939 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. EDUARDO MONTENEGRO<br /><br />068 Phil 659


    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