November 1950 - Philippine Supreme Court Decisions/Resolutions
Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence
Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1950 > November 1950 Decisions >
G.R. No. L-3582 November 29, 1950 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. EMILIO B. SANTOS
087 Phil 687:
087 Phil 687:
EN BANC
[G.R. No. L-3582. November 29, 1950.]
THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. EMILIO SANTOS Y BAUTISTA, Defendant-Appellee.
Asst. Solicitor General Guillermo E. Torres and Solicitor Esmeraldo Umali, for plaintiff and Appellant.
Emilio Santos Bautista, in his own behalf.
SYLLABUS
1. COURTS; JURISDICTION; OFFENSES PUNISHED WITH "DESTIERRO." — Offenses penalized by destierro falls under the jurisdiction of justice of the peace and municipal courts. (Yu Chin Hua v. Dinglasan, 47 O.G. Supp. 12, P. 233).
D E C I S I O N
TUASON, J.:
This is an appeal from an order of the Court of First Instance of Manila dismissing Criminal Case No. 11072 of that court with costs de oficio, on the ground that the offense alleged in the information was without the jurisdiction of the said court.
The accused was charged with attempted bribery in that, it was alleged, he "offered and delivered" to a member of the police force of the City of Manila, "one (1) peso bill, to the end" that the said patrolman "would abstain from complying with his duties as such police officer, that is, to arrest the said accused and to file charge against him "for obstruction of a public street.
A case raising identical question was presented and decided by this Court in Uy Chin Hua v. Hon. Judge Rafael Dinglasan, 86 Phil., 617. In that case, this Court ruled that the imposable penalty for the attempted crime of bribery is destierro in its minimum and medium periods, the penalty provided for the consummated crime being arresto mayor in its medium and maximum periods. It was further held that offenses penalized by destierro fall under the jurisdiction of justice of the peace and municipal courts.
Wherefore, the appealed order is affirmed without special finding as to costs.
Feria, Pablo, Bengzon, Padilla, Montemayor, Jugo and Bautista, JJ., concur.
Moran, C.J., Paras and Reyes, JJ., concur in the result.
The accused was charged with attempted bribery in that, it was alleged, he "offered and delivered" to a member of the police force of the City of Manila, "one (1) peso bill, to the end" that the said patrolman "would abstain from complying with his duties as such police officer, that is, to arrest the said accused and to file charge against him "for obstruction of a public street.
A case raising identical question was presented and decided by this Court in Uy Chin Hua v. Hon. Judge Rafael Dinglasan, 86 Phil., 617. In that case, this Court ruled that the imposable penalty for the attempted crime of bribery is destierro in its minimum and medium periods, the penalty provided for the consummated crime being arresto mayor in its medium and maximum periods. It was further held that offenses penalized by destierro fall under the jurisdiction of justice of the peace and municipal courts.
Wherefore, the appealed order is affirmed without special finding as to costs.
Feria, Pablo, Bengzon, Padilla, Montemayor, Jugo and Bautista, JJ., concur.
Moran, C.J., Paras and Reyes, JJ., concur in the result.
