Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1911 > March 1911 Decisions > G.R. No. L-5843 March 25, 191

UNITED STATES v. CANUTO GUSTILO

019 Phil 208:




PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

EN BANC

[G.R. No. L-5843. March 25, 1911.]

THE UNITED STATES, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. CANUTO GUSTILO, Defendant-Appellee.

Office of the Solicitor-General Harvey for Appellant.

No appearance for Appellee.

SYLLABUS


1. CRIMINAL PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE; JEOPARDY, UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF THE "PHILIPPINE BILL." — That portion of the "Philippine Bill" embodying the principle that no person shall be twice put in jeopardy for the same offense should be made to cover, as nearly as possible, every result which flows from a single criminal act born of a single criminal intent even though more than what might otherwise be termed one crime is actually committed by said act. When a single act constitutes one or more crimes, or when one crime is the necessary means of committing the other, there can be only one punishment for all the crimes committed by such act.

2. ID.; ID.; ILLEGAL POSSESSION OF TWO FIREARMS AT THE SAME TIME AND SAME PLACE. — The possession of a shotgun and a revolver by the same person?t the same time, and in the same place, is but one act of possession, one violation of the law, and a conviction and punishment for the possession of the one arm is a bar to a prosecution for the possession of the other.


D E C I S I O N


MORELAND, J.:


The question involved in this appeal is expressed by the court below in the following language:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"The defendant arraigned upon the information in this case has appeared with his counsel and entered the plea of former jeopardy, said plea being based upon the record in criminal case No. 1360 of this court, entitled "United States v. Canuto Gustilo," in which case the information was filed on the 17th day of May, 1909, charging the defendant with the offense of illegal possession of firearms. To that information the defendant pleaded guilty and was on the 10th day of July, 1909, sentenced to pay a fine and costs.

"It is a fact disclosed by the record and admitted by the fiscal that the firearm which the defendant is now charged with illegally possessing was possessed by him during the same period and was seized at the same time and place as the arm for the possession of which he was convicted in case No. 1360. The defense, therefore, contends that but one crime was committed by the defendant and that by subjecting him to another prosecution the Government is violating the provisions of the Philippine Bill, that no one shall be twice placed in jeopardy for the same offense. The position of the fiscal is that inasmuch as the law requires a bond in the sum of two hundred pesos for each firearm possessed by any individual, the offense defined and penalized by section 25 of Act No. 1780 is committed as many times, as the accused has unlicensed firearms in his possession, in other words, that the possession of each individual firearm constitutes a separate offense for which a prosecution will lie."cralaw virtua1aw library

The brief of the prosecution raises the preliminary question that:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"In pleading former jeopardy, it is not sufficient simply to establish that the party alleging it had been in jeopardy once, but he must allege and prove in the most specific way that the offense of which he was formerly convicted or acquitted was identically the same offense for which the courts were attempting to try him again. This throws the burden of proof upon the defendant to prove his plea of former jeopardy. In the case at bar no witness was called to prove his plea of former jeopardy and the facts alleged in the plea are an admission that the facts alleged in the complaint are true. The record in case No. 1360 and the record in case No. 1361 constitute records in absolutely separate and distinct criminal actions, and under the rule in the Gavieres case, above cited, it was incumbent upon the trial court to require the defendant to prove the allegations of his former jeopardy in the most specific way."cralaw virtua1aw library

It is true that it does not appear affirmatively from the record that any evidence was, technically speaking, offered by the accused to prove his plea of former jeopardy. But sufficient appears in the record to establish the facts upon which the plea is founded. The accused, in his plea, after quoting the information on criminal cause No. 1360, says:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"That the witnesses Agustin Landato and Ambrosio Burso, witnesses for the prosecution, testified under oath in the preliminary investigation in criminal cause No. 1360, and also in the preliminary investigation in the present cause, that the shotgun, with its ammunition, which was the subject of the complaint in cause No. 1360, and the Colt’s revolver, with its ammunition, which is the subject of the present complaint, were in the possession, custody and control of the accused and were owned by him together and were located in the same house, in the same room, and both of said arms were taken by the public authorities by the same act, at the same time, and in the same place."cralaw virtua1aw library

The provincial fiscal made the following answer to the plea:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"The undersigned fiscal, answering the plea of former jeopardy invoked by the defendant, alleges: That the accused has not been placed in jeopardy for the reason that the facts detailed in prior cause No. 1360 against the accused, Canuto Gustilo, upon which he was convicted, are not the same facts mentioned in the complaint in the present cause. In the former, as in the present case, the body or bodies of the crime are different and distinct between themselves and for that reason the allegation of jeopardy alleged by the defense fails of legal foundation."cralaw virtua1aw library

Upon this plea and the answer thus made to it, the court heard the arguments of the parties and proceeded to a determination of the case. While the record fails to disclose that any evidence substantiating the plea of former jeopardy was, technically speaking, introduced, it appears, nevertheless, that everything necessary to present the facts upon which such plea was based was taken for granted and as if it appeared in the case. Moreover, it is seen from the quotation above given of a part of the decision of the lower court that it was expressly stated "that the record disclosed, and it was admitted as a fact by the fiscal, that the firearm which the defendant is now charged with illegally possessing was possessed by him during the same period and was seized at the same time and place as the arm for the possession of which he was convicted in case No. 1360." From all the facts and circumstances which appear of record in the appeal before us, and particularly in view of the fact that the plea as presented has not really been traversed by the prosecution, we must presume conclusively that all of the facts which the defendant required to present fully the question of former jeopardy were included in the record and before the court at the time of his decision.

After a thorough consideration of the case, the trial court found the plea of the defendant good and dismissed the cause. From the judgment entered on that dismissal the prosecution appealed to this court.

That the portion of the statute under which the defendant stands charged which is material to the disposition of the present question reads as follows:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"SECTION 1. It shall be unlawful for any person, . . . to possess, or have the custody of any shotgun, revolver, pistol . . . or any other deadly weapon from which a bullet, ball, shot, shell, or other missile . . . may be discharged by means of gunpowder or other explosive, and it shall be unlawful for any person . . . to acquire, dispose of, or have custody of any ammunition or detached parts for weapons, unless and until such person . . . shall secure a license . . . and otherwise comply with the requirements of this Act and the rules and regulations issued . . . pursuant to the provisions of this Act. The word "firearm" as used herein shall be interpreted to mean any and all of the weapons mentioned in this section."cralaw virtua1aw library

"SEC. 25. Any person having possession of any firearms in violation of any provision of this Act shall . . . be punished by a fine . . . or by imprisonment . . . ."cralaw virtua1aw library

The question is squarely presented to us on this appeal whether or not, under the statute above quoted, the prosecuting officer may, when he finds a person in possession of two or more firearms at the same time and in the same place, proceed against such person in as many separate actions as there are different firearms in his possession.

We are confident that portion of the Philippine Bill embodying the principle that no person shall be twice put in jeopardy of punishment for the same offense should, in accordance with its letter and spirit, be made to cover as nearly as possible every result which flows from a single criminal act impelled by a single criminal intent. The fact should not be lost sight of that it is the injury to the public which a criminal action seeks to redress, and by such redress to prevent its repetition, and not the injury to individuals. In so far as a single criminal act, impelled by a single criminal intent, in other words, one volition, is divided into separate crimes and punished accordingly, just so far are the spirit of the Philippine Bill and the provisions of article 89 of the Penal Code violated.

In our judgment the possession of the two firearms under the conceded facts of this case constitutes but one criminal act, one volition. Having been punished once for that act, he can not, under the provisions of the Philippine Bill and of article 89 of the Penal Code, be punished again for the same act. (U.S. v. Lim San, 17 Phil. Rep., 273; U.S. v. Sauler, No. 6342, 1 State v. Benham, 7 Conn., 414; Rex v. Johnson, 3 Mau. & Selw., 539, 548; Rex v. Clark, 1 Brod. & Bing; 473; Holland q. t. v. Duffin, Peake’s Ca., 58; State v. Moore, 86 Minn., 422; State v. Colgate, 31 Kan., 511; State v. Egglesht, 41 Iowa, 574; Regina v. Brettel, 1 Carr. & Marsh, 609; 1 Wharton’s Criminal Law, sec. 565, note x; Lorton v. State, 7 Mo., 55; State v. Nelson, 29 Me., 329; State v. Williams, 10 Humph., 101; State v. Morphin, 37 Mo., 373; Jackson v. State, 14 Ind., 327; U.S. v. Bereman, 5 Cranch (C. C.) , 412; State v. Thurston, 2 McMullan, 382; The People v. Van Kuren, 5 Parker C. R., 66; Regina v. Erlington, 9 Cox C., 86; People v. Stephens, 79 Cal., 428; People v. Willard, 92 Cal., 482; People v. Ny Sam Chung, 94 Cal., 304; People v. McDaniels, 137 Cal., 192; bishop’s New Criminal Law, sec. 1,070; People v. Allen, 1 Parker’s C. R., 445; State v. Damon, 2 Tyler (Vt.) , 387; Clem v. State, 42 Ind., 420; Ben v. State, 22 Ala., 9; Womack v. State, 7 Coldwell, 508, 509; State v. Hennessey, 23 Ohio State, 339; Wilson v. State, 45 Tex., 76; Hudson v. State, 9 Tex. Ct. App., 151; Rex v. Jones, 4 Car. 7 P., 217; Fisher v. Commonwealth, 1 Bush., 211; People v. McGowan, 17 Wend., 386; Hinkle v. Commonwealth, 4 Dana, 518; Fiddler v. State, 7 Humph., 508; Roberts v. State, 14 Ga., 8; Copenhaven v. State, 15 Ga., 264; State v. Lewis, 2 Hawks (N. C.) , 98; Woodford v. People, 62 N. Y., 117; Commonwealth v. Squire, 42 Mass., 258; State v. Cooper, 1 Green (N. J. L.) , 361; Commonwealth v. Wade, 34 Mass., 395; Hennessey v. People, 21 How. Pr., 239; Holt v. State, 38 Ga., 187; Jones v. State, 55 Ga., 625, 626; Wilson v. State, 24 Conn., 57, 69; Hinkle v. Commonwealth, 4 Davis, 518; State v. Chaffin, 2 Swan (Tenn.) , 493; Laupher v. State, 14 Ind., 327; State v. McCormack, 8 Oregon, 236; 1 Bishop’s Criminal Law, sec. 1,060; State v. Augustine, 29 La., An., 119; Commonwealth v. Prescott, 153 Mass., 396; supreme court of Spain, decisions of 3rd May, 1871; 26th April, 1873; 4th December, 1871; 4th October, 1871; 30th December, 1885; 10th June, 1886.)

We have carefully examined the numerous authorities cited by the learned counsel for the people. In by far the most of them a second (not strictly so) punishment was permitted because there were two distinct crimes, committed by separate and distinct acts impelled by the corresponding criminal intents. With the others, in which a second punishment (strictly so) was allowed and imposed, although both crimes resulted from a single volition of the accused, we can not agree for the reason that they are opposed to the law of these Islands and are in conflict with what we believe to be the weight of authority.

The possession of the two firearms being, in our judgment, but one act, the present action against the accused can not be maintained, he having been already punished for such act.

The judgment of the trial court is affirmed, costs de oficio.

Arellano, C.J., Mapa, Carson and Trent, JJ., concur.

Endnotes:



1. See Notes, post.




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-1911 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. Nos. L-5600 and 5602 March 2, 1911 - FROEHLICH & KUTTNER v. INSULAR COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS

    018 Phil 461

  • G.R. No. L-6064 March 2, 1911 - UNITED STATES v. SY-SUIKAO

    018 Phil 482

  • G.R. No. L-6289 March 2, 1911 - JOSE M. ARROYO v. MATIAS GRANADA

    018 Phil 484

  • G.R. No. L-6300 March 2, 1901

    UNITED STATES v. JACINTA MATA, ET AL.

    018 Phil 490

  • G.R. No. L-6411 March 2, 1911 - UNITED STATES v. PEDRO REYES

    018 Phil 495

  • G.R. No. L-6423 March 2, 1911 - UNITED STATES v. SIMEON QUIAOIT

    018 Phil 499

  • G.R. No. L-6457 March 2, 1911 - UNITED STATES v. ISIDRO MADAMBA

    018 Phil 501

  • G.R. No. L-6486 March 2, 1911 - UNITED STATES v. RAFAEL B. CATOLICO

    018 Phil 504

  • G.R. No. L-6510 March 2, 191

    UNITED STATES v. POLICARPIO GAVARLAN

    018 Phil 510

  • G.R. No. L-5969 March 3, 1911 - UNITED STATES v. CEFERINO BENITEZ, ET AL.

    018 Phil 513

  • G.R. No. L-6050 March 3, 1911 - UNITED STATES v. EMILIANO RAMOS

    018 Phil 518

  • G.R. No. L-6059 March 3, 1911 - UNITED STATES v. ARCADIO BERNALES

    018 Phil 525

  • G.R. No. L-6330 March 6, 1911 - UNITED STATES v. JUAN ORACION, ET AL.

    018 Phil 530

  • G.R. No. L-6493 March 9, 1911 - UNITED STATES v. AGATON NER

    018 Phil 534

  • G.R. No. L-5446 March 10, 1911 - MANUEL CEA v. MARIANO P. VILLANUEVA

    018 Phil 538

  • G.R. No. L-6409 March 10, 1911 - UNITED STATES v. TOMAS CRUZ

    018 Phil 543

  • G.R. No. L-5554 March 11, 1919

    JUAN NOEL v. GERONIMO GODINEZ, ET AL.

    018 Phil 546

  • G.R. No. L-5619 March 11, 1919

    ENGRACIO ORENSE v. CIRILIO JAUCIAN

    018 Phil 553

  • G.R. No. L-5752 March 11, 1911 - UNITED STATES v. LORENZO SISON

    018 Phil 557

  • G.R. No. L-6102 March 11, 1911 - UNITED STATES v. RUFINO DINEROS

    018 Phil 566

  • G.R. No. L-6110 March 11, 1911 - UNITED STATES v. NARCISO DUCO

    019 Phil 1

  • G.R. No. L-6177 March 11, 1911 - UNITED STATES v. JULIANA BRIOSO

    019 Phil 3

  • G.R. No. 6189 March 11, 1911 - FAUSTINO LICHAUCO v. TEODORO LIMJUCO, ET AL.

    019 Phil 12

  • G.R. No. L-6343 March 11, 1911 - UNITED STATES v. MANUEL RODRIGUEZ

    019 Phil 23

  • G.R. No. L-6445 March 11, 1911 - UNITED STATES v. SILVINO MADAMBA

    019 Phil25cralaw:red

  • G.R. No. L-6483 March 11, 1911 - UNITED STATES v. FILEMON MENDEZ

    019 Phil 28

  • G.R. No. L-4641 March 13, 1911 - SEMINARY OF SAN CARLOS v. MUNICIPALITY OF CEBU

    019 Phil 32

  • G.R. No. L-5741 March 13, 1911 - ESTANISLAUA ARENAS v. FAUSTO O. RAYMUNDO

    019 Phil 46

  • G.R. No. L-5358 March 16, 1911 - LEE LIONG v. ISIDORO HIZOLA

    019 Phil 57

  • G.R. No. L-5729 March 16, 1911 - VICENTE PADILLA v. SIMEON LINSANGAN

    019 Phil 65

  • G.R. No. 6219 March 16, 1911 - UNITED STATES v. MARTIN DOMINGO

    019 Phil 69

  • G.R. No. L-6407 March 16, 1911 - FRANCISCA FERNANDEZ v. R.M. SHEARER

    019 Phil 75

  • G.R. No. L-6410 March 16, 1911 - ALEJANDRO TECSON v. LA CORPORACION DE LOS PP. DOMINICOS

    019 Phil 79

  • G.R. No. L-5174 March 17, 1911 - CANDIDO PASCUAL v. EUGENIO DEL SAZ OROZCO

    019 Phil 82

  • G.R. No. L-5759 March 17, 191

    WALTER E. OLSEN & CO. v. MATSON

    019 Phil 102

  • G.R. No. 6485 March 17, 1911 - GUTIERREZ HERMANOS v. ORIA HERMANOS

    019 Phil 104

  • G.R. No. L-6002 March 18, 1911 - AMERICAN SURETY OF NEW YORK, ET AL. v. PRUDENCIO BATANGAN

    019 Phil 110

  • G.R. No. L-6061 March 18, 1911 - UNITED STATES v. MATEO PADO, ET AL.

    019 Phil 111

  • G.R. No. L-6082 March 18, 1911 - UNITED STATES v. ISIDRO VICENTILLO

    019 Phil 118

  • G.R. No. L-6231 March 18, 1911 - CELESTINO SYTIAR CLEMENTE v. AMBROSIO MARASIGAN

    019 Phil 120

  • G.R. No. 6365 March 18, 1911 - CANUTA GUERRERO v. EULALIO SINGSON, ET AL.

    019 Phil 122

  • G.R. No. 6469 March 18, 1911 - UNITED STATES v. EUSTAQUIO SIMBAHAN

    019 Phil 123

  • G.R. No. 6378 March 20, 1911 - UNITED STATES v. PELAGIO CAPA, ET AL.

    019 Phil 125

  • G.R. No. 6624 March 20, 1911 - UNITED STATES v. PEDRO BANILA

    019 Phil 130

  • G.R. No. L-6160 March 21, 1911 - UNITED STATES v. DANIEL NAVARRO

    019 Phil 134

  • G.R. No. L-6230 March 21, 1911 - A.R. HAGER v. ALBERT J. BRYAN

    019 Phil 138

  • G.R. No. 6276 March 21, 1911 - TOMASA M. SANTIAGO ET AL. v. MARCELA C. CRUZ

    019 Phil 145

  • G.R. No. 6344 March 21, 1911 - UNITED STATES v. MANUEL RODRIGUEZ, ET AL.

    019 Phil 150

  • G.R. No. 6481 March 21, 1911 - UNITED STATES v. QUINTIN MONDEJAR

    019 Phil 158

  • G.R. No. 5688 March 22, 1911 - HENRY BLUM v. MARIANO BARRETTO

    019 Phil 161

  • G.R. No. 6432 March 22, 1911 - UNITED STATES v. PEDRO BALAGTAS, ET AL.

    019 Phil 164

  • G.R. No. L-6008 March 23, 1911 - UNITED STATES v. FAUSTINA ORTIZ, ET AL.

    019 Phil 174

  • G.R. No. L-6128 March 23, 1911 - UNITED STATES v. SILVESTRE ARZADON

    019 Phil 175

  • G.R. No. 6427 March 23, 1911 - UNITED STATES v. CONSTANCIO FLORES

    019 Phil 178

  • G.R. No. 6491 March 23, 1911 - UNITED STATES v. TAMPACAN, ET AL.

    019 Phil 185

  • G.R. No. L-5815 March 24, 1911 - UNITED STATES v. PALA, ET AL.

    019 Phil 190

  • G.R. No. L-3026 March 25, 1911 - UNITED STATES v. MELCHOR BABASA

    019 Phil 198

  • G.R. No. L-5333 March 25, 1911 - UY ALOC, ET AL. v. CHO JAN LING, ET AL.

    019 Phil 202

  • G.R. No. L-5640 March 25, 1911 - BENIGNO GOITIA v. CHARTERED BANK OF INDIA

    019 Phil 206

  • G.R. No. L-5843 March 25, 191

    UNITED STATES v. CANUTO GUSTILO

    019 Phil 208

  • G.R. No. L-6016 March 25, 1911 - ANDRES PUNZALAN v. SISENANDO FERRIOLS

    019 Phil 214

  • G.R. No. L-6019 March 25, 1911 - JUAN N. ARAGON v. INSULAR GOVERNMENT

    019 Phil 223

  • G.R. No. 6372 March 27, 1911 - UNITED STATES v. PASCUAL MOLINA

    019 Phil 227

  • G.R. No. 6354 March 28, 1911 - UNITED STATES v. EDUARDO SALAZAR, ET AL.

    019 Phil 233

  • G.R. No. L-5939 March 29, 1911 - JOSE MARIN v. VALENTINA NACIANCENO

    019 Phil 238

  • G.R. No. 6760 March 29, 1911 - NICOLAS E. NUÑEZ v. CHAS. A. LOW

    019 Phil 244

  • G.R. No. 6044 March 30, 1911 - MANUEL M. PADIN v. R. E. HUMPHEMREYS, ET AL.

    019 Phil 254

  • G.R. No. 4877 March 31, 1911 - CRISANTO LICHAUCO v. CHO-CHUN CHAC

    019 Phil 258