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
 

   
June-1941 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. 47032 June 6, 1941 - EL PUEBLO DE FILIPINAS v. JOSE MIRANDA, ET AL.

    072 Phil 222

  • G.R. Nos. 47038, 47039 & 47040 June 6 1941

    LUIS R. PIMENTEL v. PEOPLE OF THE PHIL.

    072 Phil 227

  • G.R. No. 47260 June 6, 1941 - BISHOP OF NUEVA CACERES v. EUGENIA M. SANTOS, ET AL.

    072 Phil 230

  • G.R. No. 47454 June 6, 1941 - ADRIANO TRINIDAD v. ANDRES S. SIOCHI, ET AL.

    072 Phil 241

  • G.R. No. 47317 June 10, 1941 - SISENANDO ABARRO v. TOMASA DE GUIA

    072 Phil 245

  • G.R. No. 47519 June 10, 1941 - EMILIANO E. GARCIA v. PAZ E. VELASCO

    072 Phil 248

  • G.R. No. 47549 June 10, 1941 - J. BENTON CLAUSEN v. ISABEL CABRERA

    072 Phil 252

  • G.R. Nos. 47646 & 47657 June 10, 1941 - FRANCISCO BALTAZAR v. ANDRES LAYUG, ET AL.

    072 Phil 254

  • G.R. No. 47684 June 10, 1941 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. DIONISIO A. MANEJA

    072 Phil 256

  • G.R. No. 47686 June 10, 1941 - COMMONWEALTH OF THE PHIL. v. TEODORO SANDIKO

    072 Phil 258

  • G.R. No. 47689 June 10, 1941 - WILFRIDO MACEDA, ET AL. v. ZOSIMO FERNANDEZ, ET AL.

    072 Phil 261

  • G.R. No. 47694 June 10, 1941 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. PATRICIO CALDITO, ET AL.

    072 Phil 263

  • G.R. No. 47756 June 10, 1941 - LUIS OCAMPO v. PEOPLE OF THE PHIL.

    072 Phil 268

  • G.R. No. 47762 June 10, 1941 - SILVERIO MORCO v. SALVADOR MUÑOZ

    072 Phil 270

  • G.R. No. 47764 June 10, 1941 - FRANCISCO V. VILLARICA v. CONCEPCION MANIKIS

    072 Phil 272

  • G.R. No. 47770 June 10, 1941 - SILVESTRE GALLANO v. PABLO S. RIVERA, ET AL.

    072 Phil 277

  • G.R. No. 47780 June 10, 1941 - CIRILO ALAFRIZ v. MARIANO NABLE, ET AL.

    072 Phil 278

  • G.R. No. 47789 June 10, 1941 - FE CASTRO DE AGBAYANI v. JUSTICE OF PEACE OF THE CAPITAL OF ILOCOS NORTE, ET AL.

    072 Phil 281

  • G.R. No. 47816 June 10, 1941 - SABINO AGUILOS v. CONRADO BARRIOS, ET AL.

    072 Phil 285

  • G.R. No. 47862 June 10, 1941 - FRANCISCA SIMON v. SINFOROSO TAGOC

    072 Phil 287

  • G.R. No. 47863 June 10, 1941 - JOSE H. JUNQUERA v. JOSE VAÑO, ET AL.

    072 Phil 293

  • G.R. No. 47892 June 10, 1941 - PABLO VALENZUELA v. VALERIO FLORES, ET AL.

    072 Phil 307

  • G.R. No. 48027 June 10, 1941 - EL INTESTADO DE BENITO VALDEZ, ET AL. v. VICENTE ALBERT, ET AL.

    072 Phil 309

  • G.R. No. 47421 June 13, 1941 - IN RE: EL REGISTRADOR DE TITULOS DE NUEVA ECIJA v. EL DIRECTOR DE TERRENOS

    072 Phil 313

  • G.R. No. 47734 June 13, 1941 - EL BANCO NACIONAL FILIPINO v. CORNELIO PINEDA, ET AL.

    072 Phil 316

  • G.R. No. 47738 June 13, 1941 - ALFREDO HIZON MERCADO, ET AL. v. BUENAVENTURA OCAMPO, ET AL.

    072 Phil 318

  • G.R. No. 47799 June 13, 1941 - ELEUTERIO NERI, ET AL. v. IGNACIA AKUTIN, ET AL.

    072 Phil 322

  • G.R. No. 47965 June 13, 1941 - EL DIRECTOR DE TERRENOS v. MARIANO ABACAHIN, ET AL.

    072 Phil 326

  • G.R. No. 47072 June 17, 1941 - EL DIRECTOR DE TERRENOS v. AGUSTIN ACOSTA, ET AL.

    072 Phil 329

  • G.R. No. 47358 June 17, 1941 - MANILA MOTOR CO., INC. v. LA CIUDAD DE MANILA

    072 Phil 336

  • G.R. No. 47432 June 17, 1941 - EUSTAQUIO FULE v. SALVADOR ABAD SANTOS, ET AL.

    072 Phil 339

  • G.R. No. 47542 June 17, 1941 - LA FABRICA DE CERVEZA DE SAN MIGUEL v. ESTEBAN C. ESPIRITU

    072 Phil 344

  • G.R. No. 47570 June 17, 1941 - IN RE: EL REGISTRADOR DE TITULOS DE PAMPANGA v. ALFREDO HIZON MERCADO

    072 Phil 353

  • G.R. No. 47580 June 17, 1941 - SIMEON MANDAC v. COURT OF APPEALS

    072 Phil 357

  • G.R. No. 47587 June 17, 1941 - VICENTE DIAZ v. A. L. YATCO

    072 Phil 360

  • G.R. No. 47660 June 17, 1941 - VISAYAN SURETY & INSURANCE CORPORATION v. VICENTE VERSOZA

    072 Phil 362

  • G.R. Nos. 47678 & 47679 June 17, 1941 - EL HOGAR FILIPINO, ET AL. v. ISIDORO DE SANTOS, ET AL.

    072 Phil 368

  • G.R. No. 47724 June 17, 1941 - HERMENEGILDO DEVEZA v. MANUEL RUIZ RUILOBA

    072 Phil 372

  • G.R. No. 47745 June 17, 1941 - JOSE OLIVER SUCCESSORS v. MARIAÑO NABLE, ET AL.

    072 Phil 376

  • G.R. No. 47771 June 17, 1941 - PACIFIC COMMERCIAL CO. v. GRACIANO DE LA RAMA

    072 Phil 380

  • G.R. No. 47837 June 17, 1941 - SEGUNDO GARCIA v. EL DIRECTOR DE TERRENOS

    072 Phil 385

  • G.R. No. 47848 June 17, 1941 - BONIFACIO DANGALAN v. DOMINGO MARTICIO, ET AL.

    072 Phil 388

  • G.R. No. 47889 June 17, 1941 - ANDRES JARDIN, ET AL. v. SEVERINA VILLAMAYOR

    072 Phil 392

  • G.R. No. 47972 June 17, 1941 - A. K. SPIELBERGER v. L. R. NIELSON

    072 Phil 396

  • G.R. No. 47538 June 20, 1941 - GONZALO PUYAT & SONS, INC. v. ARCO AMUSEMENT CO.

    072 Phil 402

  • G.R. No. 47588 June 20, 1941 - JOSE L. LIWANAG v. TOLARAM MENGHRAJ, ET AL.

    072 Phil 410

  • G.R. No. 47601 June 20, 1941 - EDUARDO C. GUICO v. NICASIO SAN PEDRO, ET AL.

    072 Phil 415

  • G.R. No. 47683 June 20, 1941 - EL GOBIERNO DE LAS ISLAS FILIPINAS v. CONSOLACION M. GOMEZ, ET AL.

    072 Phil 420

  • G.R. No. 47726 June 20, 1941 - MONTE DE PIEDAD, ET AL. v. VICTORINO DANGOY

    072 Phil 428

  • G.R. No. 47797 June 20, 1941 - JOSEFA LABOT v. EDUVIGES LIBRADA

    072 Phil 433

  • G.R. No. 47819 June 20, 1941 - LEONARDO GUISON v. LA CIUDAD DE MANILA

    072 Phil 437

  • G.R. No. 48100 June 20, 1941 - FLORENCIO PELOBELLO v. GREGORIO PALATINO

    072 Phil 441

  • G.R. No. 46966 June 24, 1941 - EL GOBIERNO DE FILIPINAS v. CHUNG LIU & COMPANY

    072 Phil 450

  • G.R. No. 47058 June 27, 1941 - PHILIPPINE RAILWAY CO. v. ASTURIAS SUGAR CENTRAL

    072 Phil 454

  • G.R. No. 47189 June 27, 1941 - A. L. AMMEN TRANS. CO. v. LA COMISION DE SERVICIOS PUBLICOS

    072 Phil 459

  • G.R. No. 47226 June 27, 1941 - PEDRO DE JESUS v. GUAN BEE CO.

    072 Phil 464

  • G.R. No. 47338 June 27, 1941 - FRANCISCO EGMIDIO v. LEON REGALADO, ET AL.

    072 Phil 479

  • G.R. No. 47354 June 27, 1941 - EL OPISPO CATOLICO ROMANO DE NUEVA SEGOVIA v. EL MUNICIPIO DE SANTA CATALINA

    072 Phil 482

  • G.R. No. 47380 June 27, 1941 - ZACARIAS DE SADUESTE v. MUNICIPALITY OF SURIGAO

    072 Phil 485

  • G.R. No. 47409 June 27, 1941 - ANGEL P. MIGUEL v. ARSENIO P. DIZON, ET AL.

    072 Phil 488

  • G.R. No. 47411 June 27, 1941 - J. A. WOLFSON v. MANILA STOCK EXCHANGE

    072 Phil 492

  • G.R. No. 47465 June 27, 1941 - VICENTE DIAZ v. POPULAR LABOR UNION OF CAIBIRAN

    072 Phil 502

  • G.R. No. 47501 June 27, 1941 - FELIX B. BAUTISTA, ET AL. v. GABRIEL LASAM, ET AL.

    072 Phil 506

  • G.R. No. 47517 June 27, 1941 - IDONAH SLADE PERKINS v. MAMERTO ROXAS, ET AL.

    072 Phil 514

  • G.R. No. 47641 June 27, 1941 - JOSEFA BUNDALIAN, ET AL. v. JUAN DE VERA, ET AL.

    072 Phil 520

  • G.R. No. 47701 June 27, 1941 - MENTHOLATUM CO. v. ANACLETO MANGALIMAN, ET AL.

    072 Phil 524

  • G.R. No. 47731 June 27, 1940

    QUINTINA R. SABADO v. LEONCIA FERNANDEZ

    072 Phil 531

  • G.R. No. 47888 June 27, 1941 - MANUEL VILLARAMA vs.JUANITO MANLUSOC

    072 Phil 538

  • G.R. No. 47931 June 27, 1941 - ADRIANO MENDOZA v. CALIXTO PILAPIL, ET AL.

    072 Phil 546

  • G.R. Nos. 47955 y 47993 June 27, 1941 - MARIANO B. ARROY, ET AL. v. ARSENIO DIZON

    072 Phil 557

  • G.R. No. 47971 June 27, 1941 - IN RE: MARIANO MAGBANUA, ET AL. v. MANUEL A. AKOL, ET AL.

    072 Phil 567

  • G.R. No. 48004 June 27, 1941 - CARLOS DORONILA v. DOLORES VASQUEZ DE ARROYO

    072 Phil 572

  • G.R. No. 47179 June 28, 1941 - PHIL. ASS’N OF MECHANICAL AND ELECTRICAL ENGINEERS v. M. JESUS CUENCO, ET AL.

    072 Phil 579

  • G.R. No. 47269 June 28, 1941 - KUAN LOW & CO. v. EL ADMINISTRADOR DE ADUANAS

    072 Phil 582

  • G.R. No. 47424 June 28, 1941 - EL BANCO NACIONAL FILIPINO v. BACOLOD-MURCIA MILLING CO., INC.

    072 Phil 583

  • G.R. No. 47586 June 28, 1941 - LIM BONFING, ET AL. v. TEODORICO RODRIGUEZ

    072 Phil 586

  • G.R. No. 47966 June 28, 1941 - LOPE ATIENZA v. MAXIMINO CASTILLO

    072 Phil 589

  • G.R. No. 47342 June 30, 1941 - HILARIO C. RODRIGUEZ v. RAMON ECHEVARRIA

    073 Phil 1

  • G.R. No. 47446 June 30, 1941 - JOSE P. BANTUG v. MAMERTO ROXAS

    073 Phil 13

  • G.R. No. 47637 June 30, 1941 - JOSE VISTAN v. EL ARZOBISPO CATOLICO ROMANO DE MANILA

    073 Phil 20

  • G.R. No. 47663 June 30, 1941 - JULIN GO v. EL BANCO NACIONAL FILIPINO

    073 Phil 27

  • G.R. No. 47768 June 30, 1941 - NORTHERN LUZON TRANSPORTATION v. COURT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS, ET AL.

    073 Phil 41

  • G.R. No. 47790 June 30, 1941 - IN RE: EMILIANO GUZMAN

    073 Phil 51

  •  





     
     

    G.R. No. 47694   June 10, 1941 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. PATRICIO CALDITO, ET AL. <br /><br />072 Phil 263

     
    PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

    FIRST DIVISION

    [G.R. No. 47694. June 10, 1941.]

    THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. PATRICIO CALDITO and TOMASA DE GUZMAN, Defendants-Appellees.

    Solicitor-General Ozaeta and Assistant Solicitor-General Amparo for Appellant.

    Nicanor G. Caldito for Appellees.

    SYLLABUS


    1. USURY; JURISDICTION OF JUSTICE OF THE PEACE. — Since the penalty prescribed in section 10 of the Usury Law, as amended by Act No. 2992, does not exceed six months or a fine of P200, the doctrine laid down in People v. Fajardo (49 Phil., 206, 210), is applicable, to wit, "what determines the jurisdiction of the court in criminal cases in the extent of the penalty which the law imposes for the misdemeanor, crime or violation charged in the complaint. If the penalty does not exceed six months or a fine of P200, the justice of the peace court had original jurisdiction; otherwise, the Court of First Instance."cralaw virtua1aw library

    2. ID.; ID.; RETURN OF USURIOUS INTEREST. — The return of the usurious interest is a civil liability and is not a part of the penalty provided for the offense.

    3. ID.; ID.; SUBSIDIARY IMPRISONMENT. — Notwithstanding our previous pronouncements to the contrary, we now hold, and will henceforth regard it as a settled rule, that subsidiary imprisonment, like accessory penalties (People v. Fajardo, supra), is not essential in the determination of the criminal jurisdiction of a court.


    D E C I S I O N


    MORAN, J.:


    Prosecuted in the Court of First Instance of Pangasinan for a violation of the Usury Law, defendants Patricio Caldito and Tomasa de Guzman moved to quash the information alleging that the case comes within the original jurisdiction of the justice of the peace court. The motion was granted and from the order dismissing the case, the government appealed.

    Section 10 of the Usury Law, as amended by Act No. 2992, provides in part as follows:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

    "Without prejudice to the proper civil action violations of this Act shall be subject to criminal prosecution and the guilty person shall, upon conviction, be sentenced to a fine of not less than fifty pesos nor more than two hundred pesos, or to imprisonment for not less than ten days nor more than six months, or both, in the discretion of the court, and to return the entire sum received as interest from the party aggrieved, and in case of nonpayment to suffer subsidiary imprisonment at the rate of one day for every two pesos."cralaw virtua1aw library

    In People v. Fajardo (49 Phil., 206, 210) we ruled that "what determines the jurisdiction of the court in criminal cases is the extent of the penalty which the law imposes for the misdemeanor, crime or violation charged in the complaint. If the penalty does not exceed six months or a fine of P200, the justice of the peace court has original jurisdiction; otherwise, the Court of First Instance." Since the penalty prescribed in the aforequoted provision does not exceed six months or a fine of P200, the foregoing doctrine is unquestionably controlling on the jurisdiction question here raised.

    But the Solicitor-General contends that as the law prescribes not only a fine of not less than P50 nor more than P200, or imprisonment for not less than ten days nor more than six months, or both, but also the return of the entire sum received as interest from the party aggrieved, and in case of nonpayment to suffer subsidiary imprisonment at the rate of one day for every two pesos, the penalty thus provided by law is in excess of that which may be imposed by justice of the peace courts, and, therefore, violations thereof come within the original jurisdiction of Courts of First Instance. This contention is predicated upon the theory that the return of the sum received as usurious interest is not merely a civil indemnity but as additional penalty, for it may be imposed in a criminal action "without prejudice to the proper civil action," according to the language of section 10 of the Usury Law above quoted. But the ultimate result of such a theory is to render a person found guilty of collecting usurious interest liable to return twice the usurious interest collected, first in a criminal action, and again, in a civil case. That there is nothing in the law which clearly justifies such conclusion seems to be unquestionable. A double indemnity of this kind constituting as it does constitute, a liability of exceptional gravity, should not be imposed unless the wording of the law is so clear as to admit of no possibility of mistake.

    The words "without prejudice to the proper civil action" appearing at the beginning of section 10 of the Usury Law, and particularly the word "proper", can have no other meaning that that civil action lies only in proper cases, as where the offended party has reserved his right to institute it separately (U. S. v. Heery, 25 Phil., 600; Rakes v. Atlantic Gulf and Pacific Co., 7 Phil., 359; U. S. v. Guysayko, 13 Phil., 292; People v. Evia, 62 Phil., 546), according to the principle restated in Rule 107, section 1, paragraph (a), of the Rules of Court. But where there is no such reservation, and this is the situation contemplated in section 10 of the Usury Law, then the civil action is deemed instituted with the criminal action, and the judgment, aside from imposing the penalty provided by law, may compel the guilty person to return the usurious interest to the offended party by way of civil indemnity. That the return of the usurious interest cannot be regarded as a penalty or a part thereof, seems to be self-evident. On the hand, it is the nature of restitution of a thing criminally obtained, as provided in article 104 of the Revised Penal Code, and therefore a civil liability. On the other, the requirement that the usurious interest should be returned to the offended party, not to the government, is consistent only with the idea of civil indemnity and not with pecuniary penalty. There can be no question that the offended party may waive the payment, and this precludes all idea of penalty, for penalty can never be waived. As we have once held, "civil liability is due to the person injured, and criminal liability, to the sovereign." (U. S. v. Heery, 25 Phil., 600, 607). Had the return of usurious interest been intended as a part of the penalty, the law would have provided the payment of a fine as much as the amount of the usurious interest collected. But the law not only does not so provide but prescribes a separate, specific fine of not less than P50 nor more than P200, meaning thereby that the usurious interest to be returned to the offended party is not a fine but a civil indemnity.

    We hold, therefore, that the return of the usurious interest is a civil liability and is not a part of the penalty provided for the offense. In U. S. v. Heery (23 Phil., 600, 610) we said: "does the fact that in this country civil liability is, as a general rule, determined in the criminal action, transform it into criminal liability and thus make it as a part of the punishment for the crime? Certainly the mere form of a remedy should not affect its substance. And there are many indications in the Penal Code that the civil liability, although imposed for the commission of crimes, was not intended to be merged into the punishment for the crime.

    True that subsidiary imprisonment is provided by law in case of nonpayment of the fine or the usurious interest. But such subsidiary imprisonment cannot be added to the maximum penalty fixed by law for jurisdictional purposes. Section 4 of Act No. 1627 as amended by section 2 of Act No. 2131 provides that justice of the peace courts have original jurisdiction to try offenses where the penalty provided by law "does not exceed six months imprisonment and fine." According to this legal provision, the subsidiary imprisonment which may be imposed upon the accused because of his failure to pay the fine, is not material to the jurisdiction of the court. What is material is the extent of imprisonment or the amount of fine that is provided by law as penalty for the offense. Where the penalty provided by law in any given case is six months imprisonment and/or fine of P200, a justice of the peace court has jurisdiction thereof according to law, regardless of any subsidiary imprisonment which may be imposed upon the accused by reason of his insolvency in the payment of the fine. The lawmaker knew the possibility of a subsidiary imprisonment in such cases, and yet in an unmistakable language he provided that the jurisdiction of the justice of the peace court shall depend solely and exclusively upon the 200-peso fine and six months imprisonment as maximum penalty provided by law for the offense charged, and, therefore, the possible imposition of a subsidiary imprisonment can be regarded as a mere incident having no influence whatsoever upon the jurisdiction of the court.

    Subsidiary imprisonment depends upon a contingency which is the inability of the accused to pay a pecuniary liability. If the jurisdiction of the courts should be made to depend upon such contingency which may or may not happen, an anomalous situation may arise. Thus, if the penalty provided by law is exactly six months imprisonment and exactly P200 fine, and the possibility of subsidiary imprisonment it to be taken into account for the determination of what court has jurisdiction, there would then arise the impossibility for the fiscal of determining the court where to file the information, whether in the justice of the peace court or in a Court of First Instance, for if it should happen that the accused may pay the fine, the case would come within the jurisdiction of the justice of the peace court, but that if the accused is unable to pay the fine and subsidiary imprisonment is to be imposed, then the case would come within the jurisdiction of the Court of First Instance. And to compel the prosecution to anticipate whether the accused may or may not pay in order to determine the jurisdiction of this or that court, is certainly not within the contemplation of the law on jurisdiction.

    Notwithstanding our previous pronouncements to the contrary, we now hold, and will henceforth regard it as a settled rule, that subsidiary imprisonment, like accessory penalties (People v. Fajardo, supra), is not essential in the determination of the criminal jurisdiction of a court.

    Order is affirmed, with costs de oficio.

    Avanceña, C.J., Diaz, Laurel and Horrilleno, JJ., concur.

    G.R. No. 47694   June 10, 1941 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. PATRICIO CALDITO, ET AL. <br /><br />072 Phil 263


    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