Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1938 > June 1938 Decisions > G.R. No. 45474 June 13, 1938 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. RODOLFO A. SCHNECKENBURGER

065 Phil 633:




PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

FIRST DIVISION

[G.R. No. 45474. June 13, 1938.]

THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. RODOLFO A. SCHNECKENBURGER and JULIA MEDEL, Defendants-Appellees.

Solicitor-General Tuason for Appellant.

Cardenas & Casal for Appellees.

SYLLABUS


1. CRIMINAL PROCEDURE; DISMISSAL OF CASE; WHEN PROPER. — The motion for dismissal was not a demurrer to the sufficiency of the information because it was filed after the defendants had pleaded. Neither was it a demurrer to the sufficiency of the evidence for the prosecution, for the reason that, when it was filed, the trial had not yet been held. It was in reality an anticipation of the evidence of the defendants’ defense before the evidence for the prosecution was adduced. This procedure is not sanctioned by the procedural law, General Orders, No. 58 and its amendments. For this sole reason, and without resolving the question whether those guilty of bigamy cannot be convicted of concubinage, or whether bigamy is an obstacle to the prosecution for the offense of concubinage, Held: That the dismissal of the case was premature and the court should have proceeded with the trial and thereafter determined the questions decided by it in advance.


D E C I S I O N


IMPERIAL, J.:


A complaint was filed in the Court of First Instance of Manila against the defendants charging them with having committed the offense of concubinage. It was alleged therein that from the month of May, 1936, until the date of the complaint, in the City of Manila, the defendant Schneckenburger, being the legitimate husband of the complainant, voluntarily, illegally and with public scandal cohabited and had carnal intercourse with his codefendant, a woman who is not his wife, and that the latter, with public scandal, cohabited and had carnal intercourse with her codefendant with knowledge that the latter was married to the complainant. The defendants were informed of the complaint to which they pleaded "not guilty." Later, but before the trial, they filed a motion for the dismissal of the case on the ground that they had been and were being accused in the Court of First Instance of Rizal of the offense of bigamy. After hearing the motion, the court denied it by order of November 2, 1936. On January 20, 1937 the defendants filed another motion for the dismissal of the case which was then accompanied by a copy of the information for bigamy in which it appears that the latter offense was committed by the defendants on May 11, 1936. The fiscal objected to the motion but, after hearing counsel for the parties, the court, presided over by another judge, sustained the motion and dismissed the case with costs de oficio and with cancellation of the defendants’ bond. The fiscal appealed.

In his brief the Solicitor-General contends that the appealed order is erroneous because it holds that the man and the woman who are married, although they are bigamists as their marriage is illegal, do not commit the offense of concubinage, and because said order dismissed the case, with costs de oficio.

The motion for dismissal was not a demurrer to the sufficiency of the information because it was filed after the defendants had pleaded. Neither was it a demurrer to the sufficiency of the evidence for the prosecution, for the reason that, when it was filed, the trial had not yet been held. It was in reality an anticipation of the evidence of the defendants’ defense before the evidence for the prosecution was adduced. This procedure is not sanctioned by the procedural law, General Orders, No. 58 and its amendments. For this sole reason, and without resolving the question whether those guilty of bigamy cannot be convicted of concubinage, or whether bigamy is an obstacle to the prosecution for the offense of concubinage, we hold that the dismissal of the case was premature and the court should have proceeded with the trial and thereafter determined the questions decided by it in advance.

The appealed order is set aside, with instruction that corresponding trial be held by the court and definite judgment rendered in accordance with law, with costs of this instance de oficio. So ordered.

Avancena, C.J., Villa-Real, Abad Santos, Diaz, Laurel and Concepcion, 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






June-1938 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. 45693 June 4, 1938 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ISIDRO LOMUNTAD

    065 Phil 605

  • G.R. No. 45364 June 7, 1938 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JORGE LEYNEZ

    065 Phil 608

  • G.R. No. 45435 June 17, 1938 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. REMIGIO B. CHAN

    065 Phil 611

  • G.R. No. 45925 June 7, 1938 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. MARIANO CUSI

    065 Phil 614

  • G.R. No. 45312 June 13, 1938 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. NICOLAS L. MINA

    065 Phil 621

  • G.R. No. 45363 June 13, 1938 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. CHONG HONG ET AL.

    065 Phil 625

  • G.R. No. 45414 June 13, 1938 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. BRAULIO RAAGAS

    065 Phil 630

  • G.R. No. 45474 June 13, 1938 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. RODOLFO A. SCHNECKENBURGER

    065 Phil 633

  • G.R. No. 43579 June 14, 1938 - JOSUE SONCUYA v. JUAN AZARRAGA ET AL.

    065 Phil 635

  • G.R. No. 45267 June 15, 1938 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. REMIGIO PONTILLAS

    065 Phil 659

  • G.R. Nos. 45471 & 45472 June 15, 1938 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. FRANCISCO MERCADO

    065 Phil 665

  • G.R. No. 45655 June 15, 1938 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. VICENTE T. FERNANDEZ

    065 Phil 675

  • G.R. No. 45522 June 20, 1938 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. MARIA VIUDA DE SABARRE

    065 Phil 684

  • G.R. No. 45950 June 20, 1938 - LEONA PASION VIUDA DE GARCIA v. DIEGO LOCSIN

    065 Phil 689

  • G.R. No. 45611 June 21, 1938 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. HUSSIN TALOK

    065 Phil 696

  • G.R. Nos. 45727-45729 June 22, 1938 - FLORENCIA A. DE MONDIA v. PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION

    065 Phil 708

  • G.R. No. 45353 June 27, 1938 - SIO CHU TIAN v. MANILA ELECTRIC Co.

    065 Phil 719

  • G.R. No. 45357 June 27, 1938 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. ELIGIO OVILLA

    065 Phil 722

  • G.R. No. 45712 June 27, 1938 - LAUREANO EMBUDO v. JUAN G. LESACA

    065 Phil 726

  • G.R. No. 45826 June 27, 1938 - DAMASO P. PEREZ ET AL. v. CEFERINO HILARIO

    065 Phil 728

  • G.R. No. 45856 June 27, 1938 - MANILA ELECTRIC COMPANY v. RAMON ROCES

    065 Phil 731

  • G.R. No. 46021 June 27, 1938 - MAMERTO FERRARIS v. SOTERO RODAS

    065 Phil 732

  • G.R. No. 45396 June 30, 1938 - PASAY TRANSPORTATION CO. v. TOLEDO TRANSPORTATION CO.

    065 Phil 734

  • G.R. No. 45398 June 30, 1938 - TELESFORO GILIJES v. ANATALIO HALILI and PUBLIC SERVICE COMM.

    065 Phil 738

  • G.R. No. 45431 June 30, 1938 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. VIVENCIO ORAIS and DAMIAN JIMENEZ

    065 Phil 744

  • G.R. No. 45623 June 30, 1938 - JESUS CRISOSTOMO v. PASTOR M. ENDENCIA

    066 Phil 1