November 1905 - Philippine Supreme Court Decisions/Resolutions
Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence
Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1905 > November 1905 Decisions >
G.R. No. 2289 November 21, 1905 - UNITED STATES v. JOE HUTCHINSON
005 Phil 343:
005 Phil 343:
EN BANC
[G.R. No. 2289. November 21, 1905. ]
THE UNITED STATES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. JOE HUTCHINSON, Defendant-Appellant.
H.D. Terrell, for Appellant.
Solicitor-General Araneta, for Appellee.
SYLLABUS
1. SUBSIDIARY IMPRISONMENT. — Subsidiary imprisonment for nonpayment of a fine imposed under Acts No. 610 and 625 of the Philippine Commission can not be inflicted.
D E C I S I O N
MAPA, J. :
By the judgment appealed from the accused was found guilty of the offense of illegal possession of arms and sentenced to one month’s imprisonment and 100 dollars fine, or to subsidiary imprisonment, in case of insolvency or nonpayment, at the rate of one day for every 2 1/2 pesos, Philippine currency, and to the costs of the trial.
The guilt of the accused is sufficiently proven in this case, and the penalty imposed by the judge is in accordance with the law, with the exception of the imposition of subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency which is not proper, the same not being authorized by any statutory provision. Neither Act No. 610, quoted in the judgment of the lower court, nor Act. No. 652, amendatory of the former, provide for the imposition of subsidiary imprisonment in case of nonpayment of the fine imposed, together with imprisonment, as the principal penalty. It should be understood, therefore, that said subsidiary imprisonment is not to be included in the judgment.
With this modification, the judgment of the lower court is affirmed with the cost in this instance to the defendant. So ordered.
Arellano, C.J., Torres, Johnson, Carson and Willard, JJ., concur.
The guilt of the accused is sufficiently proven in this case, and the penalty imposed by the judge is in accordance with the law, with the exception of the imposition of subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency which is not proper, the same not being authorized by any statutory provision. Neither Act No. 610, quoted in the judgment of the lower court, nor Act. No. 652, amendatory of the former, provide for the imposition of subsidiary imprisonment in case of nonpayment of the fine imposed, together with imprisonment, as the principal penalty. It should be understood, therefore, that said subsidiary imprisonment is not to be included in the judgment.
With this modification, the judgment of the lower court is affirmed with the cost in this instance to the defendant. So ordered.
Arellano, C.J., Torres, Johnson, Carson and Willard, JJ., concur.