Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1914 > December 1914 Decisions > G.R. No. 8797 December 14, 1914 - UNITED STATES v. FELIX RUBIN

028 Phil 631:




PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

EN BANC

[G.R. No. 8797. December 14, 1914. ]

THE UNITED STATES, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. FELIX RUBIN, Defendant-Appellee.

Attorney-General Villamor, for Appellant.

Antonio Jayme, for Appellee.

SYLLABUS


1. CRIMINAL LAW; FORMER JEOPARDY. — The fact that an accused person has been placed in jeopardy is not one of the instances in which section 21 of General Orders No. 58 authorizes the presentation of a demurrer. It is an answer or rather an allegation which, according to section 24 of the said General Orders, may be set up by the accused with or without the plea of not guilty and may be made in a case where the accused has presented one or more of the demurrers specified in the said section 21, when such demurrers are overruled by the court and the accused is consequently required to plead. The plea of jeopardy must not be confused with the demurrer; the latter must be based upon facts or allegations which appear in the complaint or information itself and its presentation raises a question of law; while the former is established on facts which constitute a ground of defense for the accused and which must be proven.

2. ID.; ID. — In order that a defendant may legally be placed in jeopardy, it is a necessary and indispensable condition that he should have been previously tried by a court of competent jurisdiction.


D E C I S I O N


ARAULLO, J. :


On November 9, 1913, an information was filed by the provincial fiscal of Occidental Negros, in the Court of First Instance of the said province, charging Felix Rubin with the crime of lesiones, in violation of article 418 of the Penal Code, for assault and battery against the Chinaman Yap Sayco, alias Sinqui, and the infliction upon him of wounds which prevented him from engaging in his usual occupation and required medical attendance for a period of eight days. Upon arraignment, the defendant demurred on the grounds that a complaint had previously been filed against him in the justice of the peace court of Kabankalan of the said province, for the same criminal offense; that he had been tried and sentenced by the said justice of the peace court; that, as no appeal was taken from the said judgment, either by the injured party or by the Government, the same had become final; and that, therefore, the Court of First Instance could not, pursuant to the provisions of section 26 of General Orders No. 58, try him again for the same offense. Upon these grounds he prayed that the new com- plaint filed against him be dismissed.

After hearing the provincial fiscal, who asked that the demurrer be overruled because the facts therein alleged might serve as a defense but not as grounds for a demurrer, and because, though such allegations might be true, they did not constitute jeopardy, the Court of First Instance, by order of December 10, 1912, and upon the grounds that the accused had been placed in jeopardy and that the judgment of the justice of the peace court had become res adjudicata, sustained the demurrer, dismissed the case with costs de officio, and ordered the cancellation of the bail bond given by the accused.

The said order having been appealed from by the provincial fiscal, the case was brought before this court for a decision upon the appeal, by virtue of mandamus proceedings instituted by the Attorney-General against the trial judge.

In the first place, the fact that an accused person has been placed in jeopardy is not one of the instances in which section 21 of General Orders No. 58 authorizes the presentation of a demurrer, or, rather, the fact cannot be set up as a ground for a demurrer to the complaint or information, because it is not included among the instances specified in said section.

Once in jeopardy is an answer, or, rather, according to section 24 of that General Order, it is a plea that may be set up by the accused with or without the plea of not guilty, and, pursuant to the same section, may be made in a case where the accused has presented one or more of the demurrers specified in the said section 21, and such demurrers have been overruled by the court and the accused is consequently required to plead. The plea of jeopardy must not be confused with the demurrer: the latter must be based upon facts or allegations which appear in the complaint or information itself and its presentation raises a question of law; while the former is established on facts which constitute a ground of defense for the accused and which must be proven.

Therefore, the plea of jeopardy made by the accused in this case in the guise of a demurrer to the complaint filed against him was erroneously and improperly sustained by the lower court.

In the second place, the record shows in fact that on September 23, 1912, a complaint was filed in the justice of the peace court of Kabankalan by the Chinaman Yap Sayco, alias Sinqui, against the defendant herein, Felix Rubin, by virtue whereof he was sentenced by the said justice of the peace court of Kabankalan, on the 30th of the same month, to pay a fine of 15 pesetas as guilty of a misdemeanor against the person, in accordance with the provisions of article 589 of the Penal Code; but in that complaint the said Felix Rubin was charged with the crime of lesiones menos graves, defined and punished, so the complaint says, by article 418 of the Penal Code, for having maltreated the complainant and inflicted upon him injuries which prevented him from engaging in his habitual labors for at least eight days and made medical attendance necessary for the same period.

In order that a defendant may legally be placed in jeopardy, one of the necessary and indispensable conditions is that he should have been tried before a competent court.

As article 418 of the Penal Code provides for and punishes the crime of lesiones menos graves by the penalty of arresto mayor, or by destierro and a fine of from 325 to 3,250 pesetas, it is evident that the justice of the peace court of Kabankalan lacked jurisdiction to hear the complaint filed therein by the Chinaman Yap Sayco against Felix Rubin and to try him under that complaint, because justice of the peace courts only have jurisdiction in criminal cases to try parties charged with misdemeanors and infractions of municipal ordinances, arising within the municipality, in which the penalty provided by law does not exceed six months’ imprisonment or a fine of P200 (section 4 of Act No. 2041), and although the penalty of arresto mayor does not exceed six months’ imprisonment, said article 418 of the Penal Code also provides, as a penalty that may be imposed for the crime of lesiones menos graves, instead of that of arresto mayor, the penalty of destierro and a fine not exceeding 3,250 pesetas, that is, P650, neither of which penalties can be imposed by justices of the peace, pursuant to section 4 of Act No. 2041 and section 2 of Act No. 2131.

As the defendant was not tried by a court of competent jurisdiction, when he was arraigned before the justice of the peace court of Kabankalan upon the complaint therein filed against him by the Chinaman Yap Sayco, on September 23, 1913, he has not legally been placed in jeopardy in the present case.

We therefore set aside the order appealed from and the dismissal of the case therein made, together with all the other mandates therein contained, to the end that the case be proceeded with in accordance with the law.

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




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






December-1914 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. 7945 December 1, 1914 - CANDIDO PASCUAL v. EUGENIO DEL SAZ OROZCO, ET AL.

    028 Phil 521

  • G.R. No. 9259 December 1, 1914 - UNITED STATES v. JOSE PATOTO

    028 Phil 535

  • G.R. No. 8894 December 2, 1914 - MARIANO PERFECTO v. FULGENCIO CONTRERAS, ET AL.

    028 Phil 538

  • G.R. No. 8976 December 2, 1914 - GUTIERREZ HERMANOS v. NARCISO ALEGRE, ET AL.

    028 Phil 548

  • G.R. No. 10149 December 2, 1914 - UNITED STATES v. JUAN AGUAS, ET AL.

    028 Phil 552

  • G.R. No. 9003 December 3, 1914 - LUIS RIVAYA v. FELIX SAMSON RAFAEL VILLANUEVA, ET AL.

    028 Phil 556

  • G.R. No. 9700 December 3, 1914 - UNITED STATES v. BENITO MANABAT, ET AL.

    028 Phil 560

  • G.R. No. 9951 December 3, 1914 - UNITED STATES v. A. A. ADDISON

    028 Phil 566

  • G.R. No. 9188 December 4, 1914 - GUTIERREZ HERMANOS v. ENGRACIO ORENSE

    028 Phil 571

  • G.R. No. 9287 December 4, 1914 - LEON JUDA v. E. O. CLAYTON, ET AL.

    028 Phil 579

  • G.R. No. 9417 December 4, 1914 - PEDRO MARTINEZ v. ANTONINO RAMOS, ET AL.

    028 Phil 589

  • G.R. No. 9853 December 4, 1914 - CHUA YENG v. INSULAR COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS

    028 Phil 591

  • G.R. No. 9504 December 5, 1914 - JUAN POIZAT v. GEORGE MORGAN, ET AL.

    028 Phil 597

  • G.R. No. 9726 December 8, 1914 - UNITED STATES v. CARSON TAYLOR

    028 Phil 599

  • G.R. No. 9876 December 8, 1914 - UNITED STATES v. ADRIANO PANLILIO

    028 Phil 608

  • G.R. No. 9408 December 10, 1914 - DEMETRIA CACHO v. GOVERNMENT OF THE UNITED STATES

    028 Phil 616

  • G.R. No. 9019 December 11, 1914 - UNITED STATED v. PABLO PIZARRO

    027 Phil 638

  • G.R. No. 8797 December 14, 1914 - UNITED STATES v. FELIX RUBIN

    028 Phil 631

  • G.R. No. 9372 December 15, 1914 - JULIA TUASON v. FAUSTO RAYMUNDO

    028 Phil 635

  • G.R. No. 9677 December 15, 1914 - SANTOS CARTAGENO v. ISAIAS LIJAUCO, ET AL.

    028 Phil 638

  • G.R. No. 8844 December 16, 1914 - FERNANDO MAULINI, ET AL. v. ANTONIO G. SERRANO

    028 Phil 640

  • G.R. No. 8415 December 18, 1914 - GEORGE C. SELLNER v. JOSE GONZALEZ

    027 Phil 640

  • G.R. No. 8942 December 19, 1914 - TEOFILO R. TORRALBA, ET AL. v. TOMAS DEJAN, ET AL.

    028 Phil 654

  • G.R. No. 9991 December 19, 1914 - UNITED STATES v. ROMAN MAGHIRANG, ET AL.

    028 Phil 655

  • G.R. No. 10083 December 19, 1914 - UNITED STATES v. SERGIO VILLACRUCES

    028 Phil 661

  • G.R. No. 9049 December 20, 1914 - UNITED STATES v. BEN RICE

    027 Phil 641

  • G.R. No. 8933 December 22, 1914 - NICOLAS GATDULA v. SIMPLICIO SANTOS, ET AL

    029 Phil 1

  • G.R. No. 9308 December 23, 1914 - JUAN BERNARDO v. M. B. LEGASPI

    029 Phil 12

  • G.R. No. 10037 December 23, 1914 - UNITED STATES v. MAXIM0 MALLARI

    029 Phil 14

  • G.R. No. 8320 December 24, 1914 - EPITACIO AGUSTIN v. PEDRO MONTANO

    027 Phil 643

  • G.R. No. 8947 December 24, 1914 - UNITED STATES v. DY LUCHIAT

    027 Phil 646

  • G.R. No. 7747 December 24, 1914 - SEVERO GOROSPE, ET AL v. ANTONIO ILAYAT

    029 Phil 21

  • G.R. No. 7847 December 24, 1914 - BUENAVENTURA DANCEL v. MAMERTO DANCEL, ET AL.

    029 Phil25cralaw:red

  • G.R. No. 8539 December 24, 1914 - MARIA DEL CONSUELO FELISA ROXAS Y CHUIDIAN v. RAFAEL ENRIQUEZ, ET AL

    029 Phil 31

  • G.R. No. 9225 December 24, 1914 - JULIANA SOLANO, ET AL. v. VICENTA SALVILLA, ET AL.

    029 Phil 66

  • G.R. No. 9337 December 24, 1914 - PRUDENCIO DE JESUS v. CITY OF MANILA

    029 Phil 73

  • G.R. No. 9369 December 24, 1914 - UNITED STATES v. ALEJANDRO ALBAO

    029 Phil 86

  • G.R. No. 9405 December 24, 1914 - UNITED STATES v. ADEL HERNANDEZ, ET AL.

    029 Phil 109

  • G.R. No. 9582 December 24, 1914 - IRENE CALAMPIANO v. EULALIO TOLENTINO

    029 Phil 116

  • G.R. No. 9878 December 24, 1914 - UNITED STATES v. FRANK TUPASI MOLINA

    029 Phil 119

  • G.R. No. 9058 December 29, 1914 - JULIO ALAGAR v. FRANCISCO PIO DE RODA

    029 Phil 129