Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1956 > March 1956 Decisions > [G.R. No. L-8570. March 23, 1956.] THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellant, vs. DALMACIO SALAZAR, Defendant-Appellee.:




FIRST DIVISION

[G.R. No. L-8570.  March 23, 1956.]

THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellant, vs. DALMACIO SALAZAR, Defendant-Appellee.

 

D E C I S I O N

BENGZON, J.:

The fiscal of Bataan has appealed from the order of the court of first instance of that province dismissing the information, dated July 28, 1953, that charged Dalmacio Salazar with a violation of article 319 of the Revised Penal Code, because.

“in or about the periods comprised between July 16, 1957 to February, 1948  cralaw the herein Defendant Dalmacio Salazar, having mortgaged 75 cavanes of palay under the terms of the Chattel Bank, did then and there wilfully, unlawfully and fraudulently, sell and dispose of the said property without the knowledge and consent of the Bataan Agency, Philippine National Bank, to the damage and prejudice of the said bank in the sum of P262.50 Philippine Currency.”

According to said court, since the crime must have been discovered prior to February 1948, more than five years had elapsed and therefore the crime had prescribed.

The applicable provisions of the Revised Penal Code are the following:chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary

“ART. 319.  Removal, sale or pledge of mortgaged of property. — The penalty of arresto mayor or a fine amounting to twice the value of the property shall be imposed upon:chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary  cralaw

“2.  Any mortgagor who shall sell or pledge personal property already pledged, or any part thereof, under the terms of the Chattel Mortgage Law, without the consent of the mortgagee  cralaw.”

“ART. 90  Prescription of crimes. — Those punishable by a correctional penalty shall prescribe in ten years; chan roblesvirtualawlibrarywith the exception of those punishable by arresto mayor which shall prescribe in five years.”  cralaw

“ART. 26.  Fine — When afflictive, correctional or light penalty. — A fine, whether imposed as a single or as an alternative penalty shall be considered an afflictive penalty, if it exceeds 6,000 pesos; chan roblesvirtualawlibrarya correctional penalty, if it does not exceed 6,000 pesos but is not less than 200 pesos; chan roblesvirtualawlibraryand a light penalty, if it be less than 200 pesos.”

“ART. 39.  Subsidiary penalty. — If the convict has no property with which to meet the  cralaw (fine) he shall be subject to a subsidiary personal liability at the rate of one day for each 2 pesos and 50 centavos, subject to the following rules:chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary  cralaw

2.  When the principal penalty imposed be only a fine, the subsidiary imprisonment shall not exceed six months  cralaw

His Honor explained that five years was the prescriptive period, inasmuch as the offense was punishable with arresto mayor. Reminded, on a motion to reconsider, that the penalty could be a fine of P525 (twice the amount of P262.50) he declined to change his order pointing out that, anyway, the subsidiary imprisonment for such fine, could not exceed six months (Article 39 Revised Penal Code).

The Government’s appeal rests on two propositions:chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary (a) the offense prescribed in ten years because the fine could be P525, which is a correctional penalty, under articles 90 and 26:chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary (b) granting arguendo that the period was five years, such period began only from the discovery of Defendant’s misdeed, which occurred in January 1953 as the prosecution offered to prove in the court below.

We find the first proposition to be in accordance with law; chan roblesvirtualawlibraryand it is unnecessary to consider the second. The accused could have been ordered to pay a fine of P525, which is a correctional penalty. Therefore, as the offense was punished with a correctional penalty, it prescribed in ten years. That his subsidiary imprisonment could not exceed six months is immaterial. 1 The rule on prescription (as to fines) did not refer to subsidiary imprisonment. It took into account the nature of the penalty:chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary afflictive, correctional, and light. Arresto mayor was one exception. Subsidiary imprisonment, is not arresto mayor, and there is no reason to classify it as such, considering especially that exceptions are restrictively applied.

To adopt the lower court’s viewpoint would mean that the heaviest fine, even exceeding P6,000, is never “afflictive,” because the subsidiary imprisonment could not go beyond six months. That would be rewriting and amending article 26 of the Revised Penal Code.

The appealed order is reversed, and the case remanded for further proceedings. SO ORDERED.

Paras, C.J., Padilla, Montemayor, Reyes, A., Bautista Angelo, Labrador, Concepcion, Reyes, J. B. L. and Endencia, JJ., concur.

 

Endnotes:chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary

  1.  Cf. People vs. Caldito, 40 Off. Gaz. 552.




Back to Home | Back to Main




















chanrobles.com





ChanRobles On-Line Bar Review

ChanRobles Internet Bar Review : www.chanroblesbar.com

ChanRobles MCLE On-line

ChanRobles Lawnet Inc. - ChanRobles MCLE On-line : www.chanroblesmcleonline.com






March-1956 Jurisprudence                 

  • [G.R. No. L-6732. March 6, 1956.] INTERNATIONAL BUSINESS MACHINE CORPORATION OF THE PHILIPPINES (formerly Watson Business Machines Corporation of the Philippines) Plaintiff-Appellant, vs. COLLECTOR OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Defendant-Appellee.

  • [G.R. No. L-9609. March 9, 1956.] OTILLO R. GOROSPE and VITALIANO GOROSPE, Petitioners, vs. MAGNO S. GATMAITAN, as Judge of the Court of First Instance of Manila, CEFERINA SAMU, FRANCISCO DE LA FUENTE, ET AL., Respondents

  • [G.R. No. L-6401. March 14, 1956.] CLARO B. LIZARDO, Petitioner-Appellant, vs. AQUILINO HERRERA, LUCIA L. HERRERA, and ADELAIDA ORETA DE UNSON, Respondents-Appellees.

  • [G.R. No. L-7615. March 14, 1956.] THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. TIA FONG alias AH SAM, Defendant-Appellant. Honorato Hermosisimo for Appellant.

  • [G.R. No. L-8588. March 14, 1956.] LEODEGARIO ORTEGA, ET AL., Plaintiffs-Appellants, vs. DOMINADOR PACHO, Defendant-Appellee.

  • [G.R. No. L-6786. March 21, 1956.] SUSANA C. CORPUZ, in her capacity as Guardian of the persons and properties of the minors, RENATO, VICENTE and ERLINDA, all surnamed CORPUZ, Plaintiffs-Appellants, vs. DOMINGO GERONIMO, Defendant-Appellee.

  • [G.R. No. L-6884. March 21, 1956.] CAMPOS RUEDA CORPORATION, Plaintiff-Appellant, vs. STA. CRUZ TIMBER CO., INC., and ALFONSO F. FELIX, Defendants-Appellees.

  • [G.R. No. L-7152. March 21, 1956.] CALTEX (PHILIPPINES) INC., STANDARD VACUUM OIL COMPANY, and THE SHELL COMPANY OF THE PHILIPPINES, LTD., Petitioners, vs. THE HONORABLE AURELIO QUITORIANO, in his capacity as Acting Secretary of Labor, Respondent.

  • [G.R. No. L-8720. March 21, 1956.] JOSEFA LOPEZ REYES, assisted by her husband, MARTIN P. REYES, Plaintiffs-Appellants, vs. FELIPE NEBRIJA, ET AL., Defendants-Appellees.

  • [G.R. No. L-7449. March 23, 1956.] THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. NICANOR ACOSTA Y PALA alias MATA, ET AL., Defendants NICANOR ACOSTA Y PALA alias MATA, Defendant-Appellant.

  • [G.R. No. L-7712. March 23, 1956.] THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellant, vs. BERNARDO REYES, ET AL., Defendants-Appellees.

  • [G.R. No. L-7945. March 23, 1956.] NATIONAL LABOR UNION, Petitioner, vs. BENEDICTO DINGLASAN, Respondent.

  • [G.R. No. L-8195. March 23, 1956.] THE MUNICIPAL GOVERNMENT OF PAGSANJAN, LAGUNA, Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. ANGEL E. REYES, Defendant-Appellant.

  • [G.R. No. L-8314. March 23, 1956.] LORENZO B. FAJARDO, Petitioner, vs. HONORABLE FROILAN BAYONA, Judge of the Court of First Instance of Manila, and ESTER TOLOSA DE FAJARDO, Respondent.

  • [G.R. No. L-8570. March 23, 1956.] THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellant, vs. DALMACIO SALAZAR, Defendant-Appellee.

  • [G.R. No. L-8639. March 23, 1956.] In the Matter of the Adoption of the Minors Pablo Vasquez Ernesto Vasquez, Maria Lourdes Vasquez and Elizabeth Prasnik. LEOPOLDO PRASNIK, Petitioner-Appellee, vs. REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, Oppositor-Appellant.

  • [G.R. No. L-8755. March 23, 1956.] COLLECTOR OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Petitioner, vs. MANILA JOCKEY CLUB, INC., Respondent.

  • [G.R. No. L-9315. March 24, 1956.] EUGENIA MORALES, ET AL., Plaintiffs-Appellants, vs. PROCESO YA�EZ, Defendant-Appellee.

  • [G.R. No. L-6704. March 26, 1956.] In the matter of the testate estate of Margarita David. CARLOS MORAN SISON, Judicial Administrator, Petitioner-Appellee. NATIVIDAD SIDECO, ET AL., Claimants-Appellees, vs. NARCISA F. DE TEODORO, heiress, Oppositor-Appellant.

  • [G.R. No. L-6812. March 26, 1956.] MARIA L. HERNANDEZ, ET AL., Plaintiffs-Appellees, vs. HILARION CLAPIS, ET AL., Defendants-Appellants.

  • [G.R. No. L-6932. March 26, 1956.] ROSARIO NERI EDWARDS and T. E. EDWARDS, Petitioners, vs. JOSE ARCE and FE CATALINA ARCE, Respondents.

  • [G.R. No. L-7253. March 26, 1956.] INTESTADO DE DON VALENTIN DESCALS, Plaintiff-Appellant, vs. ADMINISTRADOR DE RENTAS INTERNAS, Defendant-Appellee.

  • [G.R. No. L-7987. March 26, 1956.] THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellant, vs. PLACIDO OPEMIA, ET AL., Defendants-Appellees.

  • [G.R. No. L-8080. March 26, 1956.] MARIANO BELLEZA, Plaintiff-Appellant, vs. ANICETO ZANDAGA and the PROVINCIAL SHERIFF OF LA UNION, Defendants-Appellees.

  • [G.R. No. L-8321. March 26, 1956.] BRAULIO QUIMSON, Plaintiff-Appellant, vs. ROMAN OZAETA, ET AL., Defendants-Appellees.

  • [G.R. No. L-7231. March 28, 1956.] BENGUET CONSOLIDATED MINING CO., Petitioner, vs. MARIANO PINEDA, in his capacity as Securities and Exchange Commissioner, Respondent. CONSOLIDATED MINES, INC., Intervenor.

  • [G.R. No. L-8666. March 28, 1956.] NATALIO P. AMARGA, provincial fiscal of Sulu, Petitioner, vs. HONORABLE MACAPANTON ABBAS, as Judge, of the Court of First Instance of Sulu, Respondent.