PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE

|

Search for www.chanrobles.com

EN BANC

G.R. No. L-12718 July 28, 1917

THE UNITED STATES, Plaintiff-Appellee , vs. DOMINGO CRUZ, (alias) DOMINGO DEL ROSARIO, Defendant-Appellant.

MALCOLM, J.: chanrobles virtual law library

The guilt of the defendant and appellant of the crime of illegal marriage (bigamy) is admitted. The sole basis of the argument of counsel for appellant is that the accused has been placed twice in jeopardy because also tried and convicted of the crime of amancebamiento (concubinage) arising out of the same facts. A sufficient answer is that the plea of former jeopardy cannot be urged for the first time in the Supreme Court. (U. S. vs. Perez [1902], 1 Phil., 203; Mooring vs. The State [1900], 129 Ala., 66; 135 Am. St., Rep. [1909], 79, Note IV.) chanrobles virtual law library

There being present neither aggravating nor mitigating circumstance, the penalty should have been imposed in its medium degree. The judgment of the lower court is therefore modified by sentencing the defendant to eight years and one day of prision mayor, to the accessory penalties of article 61 of the Penal Code, and to pay one-half of the costs in the first instance and all the costs in this instance. So ordered.chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library

Arellano, C.J., Johnson, Carson, Araullo and Street, JJ., concur.