Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1909 > October 1909 Decisions > G.R. No. 4934 October 30, 1909 - UNITED STATES v. A. C. V. ROSA, ET AL.

014 Phil 394:




PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

EN BANC

[G.R. No. 4934. October 30, 1909. ]

THE UNITED STATES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. A. C. V. ROSA and SY CHUY CHIN, Defendants-Appellants.

M. Caringal, and E. de Lara for Appellants.

Attorney-General Villamor for Appellee.

SYLLABUS


1. WRIT OF ERROR; SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES. — Where the only questions to be presented to the Supreme Court of the United States are those which have not been raised before or presented to this court, a writ of error will not be allowed.


D E C I S I O N


PER CURIAM:


The defendants were convicted of the crime of estafa in one of the Courts of First Instance of the city of Manila on the 17th day of July, 1908. Both defendants appealed to the Supreme Court of the Philippine Islands from such judgment of conviction. The defendant Rosa subsequently withdrew his appeal and the sentence of the lower court was executed against him.

The penalty imposed by the trial court under said judgment of conviction upon the appellant Sy Chuy Chin was "five months of arresto mayor . . ., to pay the offended party, Sr. Biunas, the sum of P53.70, or its equivalent in pesetas (268.50 pesetas), and to pay one-half of the costs of this action, suffering in case of insolvency, the corresponding subsidiary imprisonment."cralaw virtua1aw library

The Supreme Court resolved the appeal of Sy Chuy Chin on the 20th day of September, 1909, 1 and affirmed the judgment of conviction of the trial court.

The appellant Sy Chuy Chin now asks for a writ of error to the Supreme Court of the United States upon the ground that this court committed an error in affirming the judgment of conviction and the sentence imposed thereunder.

The appellant makes the following assignments error on his application for the writ:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"1. That the court erred in affirming the judgment and the sentence imposed thereunder by the trial court, especially in sentencing him to subsidiary imprisonment in case of his insolvency, said insolvency rendering him unable to return to Sr. Biunas, the party injured by the commission of the crime, the sum of 268 pesetas and 50 centimos, and to pay half the costs; because the first sum of 268 pesetas and 50 centimos is simply a civil debt in favor of said Sr. Biunas, and the payment of the costs is a civil liability in favor of the government; and there exists no law in the Philippine Islands which authorizes subsidiary imprisonment for the payment of a civil debt and for the payment of the costs of the action.

"2. That the court erred in affirming the said judgment and the penalty imposed thereunder in that it violated the provisions of section 5 of the Act of Congress passed July 1, 1902, which says: ’That no law shall be enacted in said Islands which shall deprive any person of life, liberty, or property without due process of law or deny to any person therein the equal protection of the law;’ because the imposition of subsidiary imprisonment by reason of insolvency is equivalent, first, to establish differences in the application of the law to the poor and to the rich, thereby permitting the rich to go free and the poor alone to suffer; and second, to imposing a penalty not provided for in the Penal Code of the Philippine Islands.

"3. That the court erred in affirming the judgment and the sentence of conviction because the same violated the provisions of said Act of the Congress of the United States, section 5, in which it says: ’That no person shall be imprisoned for debt;’ because even supposing that the Spanish laws relating to subsidiary imprisonment are not abolished, it, nevertheless, is certain that the said Act of Congress prohibits the application of those rules and regulations which establish subsidiary imprisonment in default of the payment of an indemnity or debt."cralaw virtua1aw library

In his printed brief before this court (there was no oral argument) the appellant made the following assignment of errors:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"The court erred:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"1. In overruling the demurrer interposed by the accused Sy Chuy Chin against the information.

"2. In declaring proved the facts alleged in the information against the said Sy Chuy Chin.

"3. In declaring the said Sy Chuy Chin guilty of the crime of estafa.

"4. In not absolving the said accused — first, because the facts alleged do not constitute a crime, and second, because there was a failure of the proofs."cralaw virtua1aw library

In his printed brief of 13 pages the appellant confined himself strictly to a discussion of the errors assigned.

Nowhere, either in the assignment of errors or in the discussion thereof, did the appellant raise any of the questions now presented in the assignment of errors accompanying his petition for the writ of error. At no time during the course of the trial or in the appeal presented and argued in this court was the remotest reference made to any of those questions. They were presented for the first time on his petition for the writ of error. The trial court had no opportunity to pass on those questions. This court has had none. The appellant is therefore not entitled to the writ upon the showing made. (Linford v. Ellison, 155 U. S., 503; South Carolina v. Seymour, 153 U. S., 353; Ex parte Moran, 144 Fed. Rep., 594; same case, 75 C. C. A., 396; Lyons v. Bank, 154 Fed. Rep., 391; Maxwell v. Federal Gold and Copper Co., 155 Fed. Rep., 110.)

The application for a writ of error is denied.

Arellano, C.J., Torres, Mapa, Johnson, Carson, Moreland and Elliott, JJ., concur.

Endnotes:



1. See Notes, post.




Back to Home | Back to Main


chanrobles.com



ChanRobles Professional Review, Inc.

ChanRobles Professional Review, Inc. : www.chanroblesprofessionalreview.com
ChanRobles On-Line Bar Review

ChanRobles Internet Bar Review : www.chanroblesbar.com
ChanRobles CPA Review Online

ChanRobles CPALE Review Online : www.chanroblescpareviewonline.com
ChanRobles Special Lecture Series

ChanRobles Special Lecture Series - Memory Man : www.chanroblesbar.com/memoryman





October-1909 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. 4526 October 4, 1909 - TOMAS FORTUNA v. RUFINO VILORIA, ET AL.

    014 Phil 232

  • G.R. No. 4602 October 4, 1909 - JUAN CO v. JAMES J. RAFFERTY

    014 Phil 235

  • G.R. No. 5332 October 4, 1909 - UNITED STATES v. TEODORO BAGUIO, ET AL.

    014 Phil 240

  • G.R. No. 4663 October 9, 1909 - UNITED STATES v. PEDRO CABOLA ET AL.

    016 Phil 657

  • G.R. No. 4846 October 9, 1909 - UNITED STATES v. VICENTE MAQUIRAYA, ET AL.

    014 Phil 243

  • G.R. No. 4970 October 9, 1909 - UNITED STATES v. SERAPIO ARTICHO, ET AL.

    014 Phil 248

  • G.R. No. 5138 October 9, 1909 - JOSE MCMICKING v. DOMINGO TREMOYA, ET AL.

    014 Phil 252

  • G.R. No. 5423 October 9, 1909 - UNITED STATES v. SERAPIO POQUIS, ET AL.

    014 Phil 261

  • G.R. No. 4009 October 11, 1909 - NICOLASA ARINGO v. URBANA ARENA

    014 Phil 263

  • G.R. No. 4339 October 11, 1909 - UNITED STATES v. PONCIANO TREYES, ET AL.

    014 Phil 270

  • G.R. No. 3865 October 16, 1909 - GREGORIO FERNANDEZ v. MLA. ELECTRIC RAILROAD AND LIGHT CO.

    014 Phil 274

  • G.R. No. 4362 October 19, 1909 - INSULAR GOV’T. v. DOROTEO NICO, ET AL.

    014 Phil 288

  • G.R. No. 4606 October 19, 1909 - JUAN RODRIGUEZ v. FINDLAY & CO.

    014 Phil 294

  • G.R. No. 5297 October 19, 1909 - UNITED STATES v. MARTINA BACAS

    014 Phil 308

  • G.R. No. 4935 October 25, 1909 - UNITED STATES v. JAMES L. BROBST

    014 Phil 310

  • G.R. No. 4998 October 25, 1909 - UNITED STATES v. JOSE C. SEDANO

    014 Phil 338

  • G.R. No. 5069 October 25, 1909 - TAN CHUCO v. YORKSHIRE FIRE AND LIFE INSURANCE CO.

    014 Phil 346

  • G.R. No. 5083 October 25, 1909 - TOMAS SUNICO v. JOSE VILLAPANDO, ET AL.

    014 Phil 352

  • G.R. No. 5167 October 25, 1909 - UNITED STATES v. JULIAN MENESES

    014 Phil 357

  • G.R. No. 5227 October 25, 1909 - INT’L. BANKING CORP. v. PILAR CORRALES, ET AL.

    014 Phil 360

  • G.R. No. 4102 October 26, 1909 - JOSE CARDELL v. RAMON MAÑERU, ET AL.

    014 Phil 368

  • G.R. No. 5072 October 27, 1909 - UNITED STATES v. SANTIAGO AUSTERO

    014 Phil 377

  • G.R. No. 5424 October 27, 1909 - UNITED STATES v. PRUDENCIO SOTO

    014 Phil 384

  • G.R. No. 4974 October 29, 1909 - UNITED STATES v. NICOLAS GUTIERREZ, ET AL.

    014 Phil 388

  • G.R. No. 5098 October 29, 1909 - UNITED STATES v. VENANCIO MONASTERIAL, ET AL.

    014 Phil 391

  • G.R. No. 4934 October 30, 1909 - UNITED STATES v. A. C. V. ROSA, ET AL.

    014 Phil 394