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
 

   
April-1955 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. L-7065 April 13, 1955 - TEOFILA S. TIBON v. AUDITOR GENERAL

    096 Phil 786

  • G.R. No. L-7784 April 13, 1955 - NICOLAS ADANTE v. CANDIDO DAGPIN

    096 Phil 789

  • G.R. No. L-7904 April 14, 1955 - EDUARDO HILVANO v. FIDEL FERNANDEZ

    096 Phil 791

  • G.R. No. L-7851 April 15, 1955 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. HONORABLE JOSE P. VELUZ

    096 Phil 794

  • G.R. No. L-8183 April 15, 1955 - VICTOR DE LA CRUZ v. HONORABLE AMBROSIO T. DOLLETE

    096 Phil 797

  • G.R. No. L-8316 April 15, 1955 - LUZON STEVEDORING CO. v. THE HONORABLE CESAREO DE LEON

    096 Phil 801

  • G.R. No. L-7094 April 16, 1955 - JUANITA MIRANDA v. HON. JUDGE DEMETRIO B. ENCARNACION

    096 Phil 805

  • G.R. No. L-7791 April 19, 1955 - LEE TAY & LEE CHAY v. KAISAHAN NG MGA MANGGAGAWA SA KAHOY SA FILIPINAS

    096 Phil 808

  • G.R. No. L-6871 April 20, 1955 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. BANDALI TAGACAOLO

    096 Phil 812

  • G.R. No. L-7301 April 20, 1955 - TIU SAN v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL. ET AL.

    096 Phil 817

  • G.R. No. L-7318 April 20, 1955 - HELEN GENIO DE CHAVEZ v. A. L. AMMEN TRANSPORTATION CO.

    096 Phil 823

  • G.R. No. L-6508 April 25, 1955 - KOPPEL (PHIL) INC. v. EL TRIBUNAL DE RELACIONES INDUSTRIALES

    096 Phil 830

  • G.R. No. L-7076 April 28, 1955 - ROSARIO and UNTALAN v. CARANDANG ET AL.

    096 Phil 845

  • G.R. No. L-6469 April 29, 1955 - NAVARRA v. PEOPLE OF THE PHIL and COURT OF APPEALS

    096 Phil 851

  • G.R. No. L-6740 April 29, 1955 - DIMAYUGA v. DIMAYUGA

    096 Phil 859

  • G.R. No. L-6752 April 29, 1955 - NAZARIO TRILLANA v. FAUSTINO MANANSALA

    096 Phil 865

  • G.R. No. L-6972 April 29, 1955 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. MAXIMO SATURNINO

    096 Phil 868

  • G.R. No. L-7054 April 29, 1955 - UY v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

    096 Phil 871

  • G.R. No. L-7541 April 29, 1955 - VISAYAN SURETY & INS. CORP. v. LACSON ET AL.

    096 Phil 878

  • G.R. No. L-7550 April 29, 1955 - DONALD A. ROCCO v. MORTON MEADS

    096 Phil 884

  • G.R. No. L-7623 April 29, 1955 - FELICIDAD CASTAÑEDA v. BRUNA PESTAÑO

    096 Phil 890

  • G.R. No. L-7692 April 29, 1955 - PEOPLE’S BANK & TRUST CO., v. HONORABLE RAMON R. SAN JOSE

    096 Phil 895

  • G.R. No. L-8107 April 29, 1955 - VISAYAN SURETY & INS. CORP. v. HON. DE AQUINO ET AL.

    096 Phil 900

  • G.R. No. L-8348 April 29, 1955 - BAGTAS v. EL TRIBUNAL DE APELACION

    096 Phil 905

  • G.R. No. L-6931 April 30, 1955 - STANDARD-VACUUM OIL COMPANY v. M. D. ANTIGUA

    096 Phil 909

  • G.R. No. L-7236 April 30, 1955 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. Po GIOK TO

    096 Phil 913

  • G.R. No. L-7296 April 30, 1955 - PLASLU v. PORTLAND CEMENT CO., ET AL.

    096 Phil 920

  • G.R. No. L-7390 April 30, 1955 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. REYES, ET AL.

    096 Phil 927

  • G.R. No. L-7561 April 30, 1955 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ISAAC, ET AL.

    096 Phil 931

  • G.R. No. L-7680 April 30, 1955 - TAN TONG v. DEPORTATION BOARD

    096 Phil 934

  • G.R. No. L-7830 Abril 30, 1955 - MANZA v. HON. VICENTE SANTIAGO, ET AL.

    096 Phil 938

  • G.R. No. L-8017 April 30, 1955 - MANSAL v. P. P. GOCHECO LUMBER CO.

    096 Phil 941

  • G.R. No. L-8278 April 30, 1955 - SUMAIL v. HON. JUDGE OF THE CFI OF COTABATO, ET AL

    096 Phil 946

  • G.R. No. L-8332 April 30, 1955 - JESUS S. RODRIGUEZ v. FRANCISCO A. ARELLANO

    096 Phil 954

  • G.R. No. L-8909 Abril 30, 1955 - JOSE LAANAN v. EL ALCAIDE PROVINCIAL DE RIZAL

    096 Phil 959

  •  





     
     

    G.R. No. L-7851   April 15, 1955 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. HONORABLE JOSE P. VELUZ<br /><br />096 Phil 794

     
    PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

    EN BANC

    [G.R. No. L-7851. April 15, 1955.]

    PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Petitioner, v. HONORABLE JOSE P. VELUZ, Judge of the Court of First Instance of Misamis Oriental, and MARIA BACUT, Respondents.

    City Fiscal Pantaleon de la Peña of Cagayan de Oro City, for Petitioner.

    No appearance for Respondents.


    SYLLABUS


    1. CRIMINAL PROCEDURE; EXECUTION TO SATISFY FINE; PARTIES; WHO MAY FILE MOTION TO QUASH EXECUTION. — The accused who was sentenced to a fine with subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency, may move to quash the writ of execution issued on a property she had sold to a third person, considering her possible liability for eviction if the property she had conveyed to the latter should finally be taken away from the latter’s possession.

    2. ID.; ID.; SATISFACTION OF JUDGMENT; WHEN ENTRY MAY BE ORDERED. — Such motion does not fall under section 15 of Rule 39, which applies to a third party. The motion falls within the scope of section 43 of Rule 39, for, besides asking for annulment of the execution proceedings, it prayed for a declaration that the accused be "relieved from the fine of P1,000 having paid the same by subsidiary imprisonment."


    D E C I S I O N


    BENGZON, J.:


    This is a petition for certiorari to annul the order of the respondent judge, Honorable Jose P. Veluz, quashing the writ of execution and the sheriff’s sale in Criminal Case No. 1044 of the court of first instance of Misamis Oriental.

    The records show that, prosecuted for illegal possession of opium, Maria Bacut was sentenced to suffer three months of arresto mayor and to pay a fine of P1,000 with subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency. She entered jail on April 2, 1951 and was released on July 13, 1951 after having served the principal penalty plus subsidiary imprisonment for the fine (with good conduct allowance).

    On November 5, 1951, pursuant to an alias writ of execution on account of the fine, the Sheriff levied upon, and sold at public auction, a piece of land declared for taxation in the name of Maria Bacut. The highest bidder turned out to be the Republic of the Philippines; and on that date the corresponding certificate of conveyance was duly notarized.

    However, on April 16, 1952 Maria Bacut filed a motion wherein, asserting full service of her subsidiary imprisonment and her consequent release from liability for the fine, she prayed for annulment of the proceedings in connection with the execution. She alleged, furthermore, that the property no longer belonged to her, inasmuch as she had sold it to Erlinda Bacor in January 1951.

    The motion was opposed by the prosecution; but on December 23, 1953 the respondent judge granted it, ordering the annulment of all proceedings in the execution and sale of the property, on the ground that they were not authorized by law — Maria Bacut having actually served the subsidiary imprisonment.

    After failing in a motion to reconsider, the prosecution submitted the instant petition, contending that the respondent judge had no jurisdiction to annul the proceedings, for the following reasons:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

    1. Maria Bacut could not lawfully serve subsidiary imprisonment, because she had property;

    2. Maria Bacut could not properly file the motion on behalf of the interested party, Erlinda Bacor;

    3. Anyway, the motion was untimely, having been submitted after the lapse of the period prescribed in sec. 15 Rule 39.

    The first reason is based on the supposition that on April 1951, when Bacut entered jail, she had this particular piece of property. However, the supposition proved to be unfounded, because a few months before she had disposed of it in favor of Erlinda Bacor.

    The second reason is also untenable, because Maria Bacut had an interest in the annulment of the proceedings, considering her possible liability for eviction if the property she had conveyed to Erlinda should finally be taken away from the latter’s possession.

    Again, the third ground of the petition is unmeritorious, because section 15, Rule 39, applies to a third party — not to Maria Bacut who was the accused herself.

    It must be observed in this connection that by express provision of the Revised Penal Code service of subsidiary imprisonment for the fine relieves the convict "from pecuniary liability as to the fine" (Art. 39 Rev. Penal Code). There might be something to petitioner’s contention that "a convict who is not insolvent could not evade the fine by serving the subsidiary imprisonment" ; but the point need not be discussed now, because the record does not show that Maria Bacut was not insolvent when she underwent subsidiary imprisonment.

    In connection with petitioner’s contention that the court had no jurisdiction to act on Maria Bacut’s motion, the governing principles are:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

    "The court issuing the execution retains a certain amount of control thereover even after the writ leaves its hands, but such control is limited and regulated by fairly definite rules of law and is not unrestricted. The court may quash the writ of execution when it appears: (a) that it has been improvidently issued, or (b) that it is defective in substance, or (c) that it has been issued against the wrong party, or (d) that the judgment debt has been paid, or (e) that the writ has been issued without authority; etc." (Quoting Dimayuga v. Raymundo, 42 Off. Gaz., (No. 9), p. 2121.) (Moran Comments on the Rules of Court, 1952 Ed. Vol. I p. 811-812).

    And if there is any further doubt about the authority of the Court to consider Maria Bacut’s motion of April 16, attention may be directed to section 43, Rule 39 which reads as follows:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

    "SEC. 43. When admission of satisfaction, or entry of satisfaction without admission, ordered. — Whenever a judgment is satisfied in fact, otherwise than upon an execution, the judgment creditor or his attorney must execute and acknowledge, or indorse, an admission of the satisfaction as provided in the last preceding section, and after notice and upon motion the court may order either the judgment creditor or attorney so to do, or may order the entry of satisfaction to be made without it."cralaw virtua1aw library

    The aforesaid motion, falls within the scope of this section besides asking for annulment of the proceedings it prayed for a declaration that the accused was "relieved from the fine of P1,000 having paid the same by subsidiary imprisonment."

    Wherefore, no excess of jurisdiction or abuse of discretion having been shown, the petition for certiorari is hereby denied. So ordered.

    Pablo, Acting C. J., Montemayor, Reyes, A., Bautista Angelo, Concepcion, and Reyes, J. B. L., JJ., concur.

    G.R. No. L-7851   April 15, 1955 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. HONORABLE JOSE P. VELUZ<br /><br />096 Phil 794


    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