Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1935 > September 1935 Decisions > G.R. No. 42890 September 20, 1935 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL ISLANDS v. GENEROSA DE LA CRUZ

062 Phil 116:




PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

EN BANC

[G.R. No. 42890. September 20, 1935.]

THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. GENEROSA DE LA CRUZ, Defendant-Appellant.

Pedro Abad Santos for Appellant.

Solicitor-General Hilado for Appellee.

SYLLABUS


1. CRIMINAL LAW; ACT No. 3559, REPEALED AND SUPERSEDED BY THE REVISED PENAL CODE; RELEASE OF MINOR CONFINED IN A TRAINING SCHOOL. — It was the intention of the Legislature, in repealing Act No. 3559 and substituting therefor the provisions of article 80, sixth paragraph, of the Revised Penal Code which reads: "If the minor has behaved properly and has complied with the conditions imposed upon him during his confinement, in accordance with the provisions of this article, he shall be returned to the court in order that the same may order his final release", to make it the duty of the trial judge to order the final release of a minor who, as in this case, has remained in the training school for the full period for which he was committed and behaved properly, and whose final release has been recommended by the Director of Public Welfare.

2. ID.; ID.; ID. — The law does not require that a minor who has been found guilty of a crime and committed to a training school shall be released when he becomes eighteen, if his conduct has been good, but when he reaches his majority, unless the court has fixed a less period.

3. ID.; ID.; ID. — The lower court erred in its original order in committing the minor to the training school only until she should become eighteen, instead of twenty-one years old; but since the appellant remained in the training school for the period ordered by the court and her conduct during that time was satisfactory, and the Director of Public Welfare reported that fact to the court and recommended her final release, and the report as to her good conduct was unquestioned, it was incumbent upon the court to approve the recommendation. If under these circumstances the minor should be recommitted, it would take away the incentive to good conduct.


D E C I S I O N


VICKERS, J.:


The appellant Generosa de la Cruz was charged in the Court of First Instance of Pampanga with the crime of murder. She pleaded guilty to the charge on February 28, 1934, but was not sentenced because she was under eighteen. It was ordered that she be confined in the government reformatory until she reached the age of eighteen, when she should be returned to the court for the corresponding sentence.

The appellant was born on October 2, 1916. Therefore at the time of the commitment she lacked only seven months of being eighteen years old.

On September 18, 1934 the Director of Public Welfare reported to the Court of First Instance of Pampanga that the conduct of the appellant while in the Training School for Girls had been satisfactory, and that she would be eighteen on October 2, 1934. He recommended that the case be terminated, and that an order for her final release be issued. The report was referred to the provincial fiscal, who returned it with the statement that he was not in a position to recommend her release, because he believed it would be an injustice to the family of the deceased to have the appellant released within so short a time. In view of this opposition of the provincial fiscal, the court ordered the Director of Public Welfare to bring the appellant into court in order that the proper decision might be issued in the case. The Director of Public Welfare complied with the order of the court, and the recommendation for her release was set for hearing, with notice to the fiscal and the attorney for the appellant. The appellant was released on a bond of P5,000. Apparently no evidence was taken. After considering the arguments of the fiscal and the attorney for the appellant, the court ordered that the appellant be confined in the government reformatory until she became of age ("El Juzgado vuelve a ordenar la reclusion de la acusada Generosa de la Cruz en el reformatorio del Gobierno hasta que lleque a la major edad.").

From that order the appellant appealed to this court, alleging that the lower court erred in ordering the confinement of the accused anew in the government reformatory without any sufficient reason, and in not ordering her final release.

The provincial fiscal maintained that since section 3 of Act No. 3203 was not expressly repealed by the Revised Penal Code, the provision therein exempting from the operation of the law the case of a minor accused of an offense punishable by life imprisonment or death, such section was still in force and article 80 of the Revised Penal Code was not applicable to the present case. The lower court overruled that contention, correctly holding that the said provision had been impliedly repealed by the Revised Penal Code.

In considering the sixth paragraph of article 80 of the Revised Penal Code the lower court said:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"Pero interpretando literalmente la frase ’sera’ devuelto al tribunal para que pronuncie sentencia definitiva de libertad’, tendria mos dos inconvenientes: Primero, el que una persona a quien le faltase algunos dias o menos para complir la edad de 18 años, puede cometer un delito de asesinato, casi impunemente, porque si observa buena conducta en el reformatorio of institucion donde fuere enviada, el tribunal tendria que ponerla despues en libertad y sobreseer la causa contra ella; y, segundo, el que las facultades del tribunal quedan de este modo delegadas al Comisionado de Bienestar Publico, y por este motivo, ha tenido que recurrir al texto ingles de la Ley, habiendo encontrado en el lo siguiente: ’He shall be returned to the court in order that the same may order his final release’, lenguaje que es diferente del empleado en el texto castellano, porque meintras en este la disposicion es mandatoria, en aquel es discrecional del Tribunal el ordenar su libertad, o no."cralaw virtua1aw library

It was provided in section 7 of Act No. 3203 that upon the termination of the probation period the minor should be returned to the court for either sentence or dismissal. Said section was amended by Act No. 3559 by adding thereto the following paragraph:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"In all cases where any such minor delinquent is returned to the court for either sentence or dismissal the court shall render such final judgment of either sentence or dismissal as in the opinion of the court the records of such minor during his confinement in the institution to which he was committed or during his probation period and the recommendation of the Public Welfare Commissioner shall justify."cralaw virtua1aw library

Act No. 3559 was, however, expressly repealed by article 367 of the Revised Penal Code, and it was superseded by the sixth paragraph of article 80, which reads as follows:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"If the minor has behaved properly and has complied with the conditions imposed upon him during his confinement, in accordance with the provisions of this article, he shall be returned to the court in order that the same may order his final release."cralaw virtua1aw library

In repealing Act No. 3559 and substituting therefor the provision we have just quoted, we think it was the intention of the Legislature to make it the duty of the trial judge to order the final release of a minor who, as in this case, has remained in the training school for the full period for which he was committed and behaved properly, and whose final release has been recommended by the Director of Public Welfare. The law does not require that a minor who has been found guilty of a crime and committed to a training school shall be released when he becomes eighteen, if his conduct has been good, but when he reaches his majority, unless the court has fixed a less period.

It would seem that the lower court erred in its original order in committing the minor to the training school only until she should become eighteen, instead of twenty-one years old; but since the appellant remained in the training school for the period ordered by the court and her conduct during that time was satisfactory, and the Director of Public Welfare reported that fact to the court and recommended her final release, and the report as to her good conduct was unquestioned, it was incumbent upon the court to approve the recommendation. If under these circumstances the minor should be recommitted, it would take away the incentive to good conduct.

For the foregoing reasons, the order appealed from is set aside, and it is ordered that the appellant be released, and the case declared terminated, with the costs de oficio.

Avanceña, C.J., Hull, Diaz, and Recto, 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






September-1935 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. 43255 September 2, 1935 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. ISLANDS v. NARCISSO YAMUT

    062 Phil 1

  • Per Rec. No. L-2555 September 3, 1935 - LEONARDO S. BITON v. ANDRES MOMONGAN

    062 Phil 7

  • G.R. No. 41702 September 4, 1935 - FORTUNATA LUCERO VIUDA DE SINDAYEN v. THE INSULAR LIFE ASSURANCE CO.

    062 Phil 9

  • G.R. No. 41937 September 4, 1935 - CENTRAL AZUCARERA DE TARLAC v. DE LEON AND FERNANDEZ

    062 Phil 49

  • G.R. No. 42551 September 4, 1935 - ALEKO E. LILIUS v. MANILA RAILROAD COMPANY

    062 Phil 56

  • G.R. No. 43514 September 5, 1935 - THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS v. UTI MARIMPOONG ET AL.

    062 Phil 70

  • G.R. Nos. 44158-44160 September 5, 1935 - FELIPE BUENCAMINO v. THE MUNICIPAL COUNCIL OF BONGABONG

    062 Phil 72

  • G.R. No. 42185 September 10, 1935 - QUINTIN DE BORJA v. JOSE DE BORJA

    062 Phil 80

  • G.R. No. 42660 September 12, 1935 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. ISLANDS v. CRISPIN IMAN ET AL.

    062 Phil 93

  • G.R. No. 42839 September 12, 1935 - BANZON and LUCILA ROSAURO v. GEORGE C. SELLNER

    062 Phil 103

  • G.R. Nos. L-43232 & 43270 September 12, 1935 - In re JOSE DE BORJA and Flores ET AL.

    062 Phil 106

  • G.R. No. 43495 September 14, 1935 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL ISLANDS v. MARCELO HONRADA

    062 Phil 112

  • G.R. No. 42890 September 20, 1935 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL ISLANDS v. GENEROSA DE LA CRUZ

    062 Phil 116

  • G.R. No. 43103 September 23, 1935 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL ISLANDS v. FILEMON MIRASOL

    062 Phil 120

  • G.R. No. 42236 September 24, 1935 - CITY OF MANILA v. LYRIC MUSIC HOUSE

    062 Phil 125

  • G.R. No. 43014 September 24, 1935 - MACONDRAY & CO. v. BENITO and OCAMPO ET AL

    062 Phil 137

  • G.R. No. 43147 September 24, 1935 - SEBASTIANA RODRIGUEZ v. IRINEA CAOIBES

    062 Phil 142

  • G.R. No. 44109 September 26, 1935 - IN RE: SILVESTRE C. PASCUAL v. PETRA SANTOS ET AL.

    062 Phil 148

  • G.R. No. 44277 September 26, 1935 - JOSE LIM v. JOSE YULO

    062 Phil 161

  • G.R. No. 42607 September 28, 1935 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL ISLANDS v. JUAN QUIANZON

    062 Phil 162

  • G.R. No. 43479 September 8, 1935 - ADAM C. DERKUM v. PENSION AND INVESTMENT BOARD

    062 Phil 171

  • G.R. No. 43563 September 28, 1935 - VILLAVERT v. LIM ET AL.

    062 Phil 178

  • G.R. No. 42213 September 30, 1935 - IN RE: Manuel Tinio. EULOGIO CRESPO v. MARIANO Q. TINIO

    062 Phil 202

  • G.R. No. 42829 September 30, 1935 - RADIO CORP. OF THE PHILS v. JESUS R. ROA ET AL.

    062 Phil 211

  • G.R. No. 43605 September 30, 1935 - CHOA SIU v. THE INSULAR COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS

    062 Phil 218

  • G.R. No. 43728 September 30, 1935 - YU HUA CHAI v. INSULAR COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS

    062 Phil 236

  • G.R. No. 44262 September 30, 1935 - LUZON SURETY CO. v. GOV’T OF THE PHIL ISLANDS and GUILLERMO F. PABLO

    062 Phil 238