Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1953 > April 1953 Decisions > G.R. No. L-5969 April 29, 1953 - ALFREDO P. DALAO v. FRANCISCO GERONIMO

092 Phil 1042:




PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

EN BANC

[G.R. No. L-5969. April 29, 1953.]

ALFREDO DALAO Y PANILO, Petitioner, v. FRANCISCO GERONIMO, Judge of the Municipal Court of Manila, Respondent.

Tomas Tria Tirona and Jose T. Viduya for Petitioner.

City Fiscal Eugenio Angeles for Respondent.


SYLLABUS


1. CRIMINAL LAW; PENALTIES; ATTEMPTED BRIBERY; "DESTIERRO." — The penalty imposable for attempted bribery is destierro, in its minimum and medium period. (Yu Chin Hua v. Rafael Dinglasan, etc., 47 Off. Gaz., No. 12, p. 233; People v. Emilio Santos, (87 Phil., 687).

2. ID.; ID.; ID.; CORRECTIONAL PENALTIES; PRESCRIPTION OF CRIMES. — The period of prescription of the offense of attempted bribery, penalized with destierro, is ten years according to the provisions of article 90 of the Revised Penal Code for the reason that destierro is classified as a correctional penalty under article 25 of the same Code.


D E C I S I O N


MONTEMAYOR, J.:


This is a petition for certiorari and prohibition. According to the petition, petitioner Alfredo Dalao y Panilo was on June 14, 1952, charged before the Municipal Court of Manila with the crime of attempted bribery in that on or about June 9, 1950, in the City of Manila, the petitioner was said to have inserted "Two one-peso bills between the pages of his (accused’s) driver’s license and delivering the said license with said cash money to Patrolman F. Jaymalin, a member of the Manila Police-Department", in consideration of the patrolman’s refraining from arresting him for disregarding a traffic sign along Quezon Boulevard, but "the said police officer refused to be corrupted" and instead placed him under arrest right then and there; that the trial judge ordered petitioner to plead to the information, but instead of interposing a plea of "not guilty", he moved to quash the information on the ground that the criminal action had prescribed; and that respondent judge denied the verbal motion to quash on the ground that the penalty for the said crime being destierro, a correctional penalty, in its minimum and medium periods, the period of prescription was five years.

Petitioner contends that the order of denial is against the law for the reason that according to him the penalty imposable for attempted bribery is arresto menor in its minimum and medium periods, and that consequently, the offense prescribes in two (2) months, while more than two years have elapsed from the time the offense was committed on June 9, 1950 until the complaint was filed on June 14, 1952.

It is unnecessary to discuss extensively the question involved in the present case. In the case of Uy Chin Hua v. Judge Rafael Dinglasan, 1 G.R. No. L-2709, this Court held that the penalty imposable for attempted bribery is destierro in its minimum and medium periods. That doctrine was affirmed in the case of People v. Emilio Santos y Bautista, 2 G.R. No. L-3582, promulgated on November 29, 1950. Consequently, we find the contention of the petitioner that attempted bribery is penalized with arresto menor in its minimum and medium periods, untenable.

The period of prescription of the offense of attempted bribery, penalized with destierro, is ten (10) years according to the provisions of article 90 of the Revised Penal Code for the reason that destierro is classified as a correctional penalty under article 25 of the same Code. For the reasons above given the petition for certiorari and prohibition is hereby denied, with costs.

Feria, Pablo, Bengzon, Tuason, Jugo, Bautista Angelo and Labrador, JJ., concur.

Separate Opinions


PARAS, C.J., dissenting:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

I dissent.

For the same reasons stated in my concurring opinion in Uy Chin Hua v. Hon. Rafael Dinglasan, G.R. No. L-2709, decided on June 30, 1950. I hold that the penalty for attempted bribery is arresto menor in its minimum and medium periods, or 1 day to 20 days. Accordingly, the criminal action against the herein petitioner for attempted bribery filed on June 14, 1952, or more than two years after the offense was allegedly committed on June 9, 1950, had already prescribed, considering that when the imposable penalty is arresto menor, the period of prescription is two months.

The consummated offense of bribery is penalized by arresto mayor in its medium and maximum periods, or from 2 months and 1 day to 6 months. When the penalty is arresto mayor, the criminal action prescribes in five years. Under the theory of the majority, the action for attempted bribery prescribes longer than the action for consummated bribery, and this is obviously anomalous, if not absurd.

Reyes, J., concurs.

Endnotes:



1. 86 Phil., 617.

2. 87 Phil., 687.




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






April-1953 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. Nos. L-4215-16 April 17, 1953 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. LEONARDO DOSAL

    092 Phil 877

  • G.R. No. L-5198 April 17, 1953 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. PANGLIMA MAHLON, ET AL.

    092 Phil 883

  • G.R. No. L-5539 April 17, 1953 - RUPERTA BOOL v. PERPETUO MENDOZA, ET AL.

    092 Phil 892

  • G.R. No. L-5587 April 17, 1953 - FELIXBERTO MEDEL, ET AL. v. HON. BERNABE DE AQUINO ETC., ET AL.

    092 Phil 895

  • G.R. No. L-5686 April 17, 1953 - ANTONIO DEL ROSARIO, ET AL. v. HON. FROILAN BAYONA, ET AL.

    092 Phil 899

  • G.R. No. L-5770 April 17, 1953 - BRICCIO MADRID, ET AL. v. HON. ANATOLIO C. MAÑALAC, ET AL.

    092 Phil 902

  • G.R. No. L-5790 April 17, 1953 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. PABLO DE LA CRUZ

    092 Phil 906

  • G.R. No. L-6103 April 17, 1953 - FORTUNATO MARQUIALA, ET AL. v. HON. FILOMENO YBAÑEZ, ET AL.

    092 Phil 911

  • G.R. No. L-4353 April 20, 1953 - TAN KAY KO v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

    092 Phil 915

  • G.R. No. L-4476 April 20, 1953 - SAMUEL J. WILSON v. B. H. BERKENKOTTER

    092 Phil 918

  • G.R. No. L-4647 April 20, 1953 - FLOR VILLASOR v. AGAPITO VILLASOR

    092 Phil 929

  • G.R. No. L-5065 April 20, 1953 - ESTEFANIA PISALBON, ET AL. v. HONORATO TESORO, ET AL.

    092 Phil 931

  • G.R. No. L-5242 April 20, 1953 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. FILOMENO B. IBAÑEZ, ET AL.

    092 Phil 933

  • G.R. No. L-5750 April 20, 1953 - RODRIGO COLOSO v. BOARD OF ACCOUNTANCY

    092 Phil 938

  • G.R. No. L-4940 April 22, 1953 - MADRIGAL & CO. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

    092 Phil 941

  • G.R. No. L-5163 April 22, 1953 - P. J. KIENER CO., LTD. v. SATURNINO DAVID

    092 Phil 945

  • G.R. No. L-5888 April 22, 1953 - ANTONIO T. CARRASCOSO v. JOSE FUENTEBELLA

    092 Phil 948

  • G.R. No. L-4831 April 24, 1953 - NATIVIDAD SIDECO, ET AL. v. ANGELA AZNAR, ET AL.

    092 Phil 952

  • G.R. No. L-5515 April 24, 1953 - FELIPA FERIA, ET AL. v. GERONIMO T. SUVA

    092 Phil 963

  • G.R. No. L-4814 April 27, 1953 - LEA AROJO DE DUMELOD, ET AL. v. BUENAVENTURA VILARAY

    092 Phil 967

  • G.R. No. L-5157 April 27, 1953 - VISAYAN ELECTRIC CO. v. SATURNINO DAVID

    092 Phil 969

  • G.R. No. L-5675 April 27, 1953 - ANTONIO CARBALLO v. DEMETRIO B. ENCARNACION, ET AL.

    092 Phil 974

  • G.R. No. L-5876 April 27, 1953 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. CHU CHI

    092 Phil 977

  • G.R. No. L-4144 April 29, 1953 - GEORGE S. CORBET v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

    092 Phil 980

  • G.R. No. L-4790 April 29, 1953 - ISIDORO FOJAS, ET AL. v. SEGUNDO AGUSTIN, ET AL.

    092 Phil 983

  • G.R. No. L-4802 April 29, 1953 - IN RE: . KIAT CHUN TAN v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

    092 Phil 987

  • G.R. No. L-4948 April 29, 1953 - JUDGE OF THE CFI OF BAGUIO v. JOSE VALLES

    092 Phil 989

  • G.R. No. L-5062 April 29, 1953 - MANILA TRADING & SUPPLY CO. v. MANILA TRADING LABOR ASS’N.

    092 Phil 997

  • G.R. No. L-5099 April 29, 1953 - BEATRIZ CABAHUG-MENDOZA v. VICENTE VARELA, ET AL.

    092 Phil 1001

  • G.R. No. L-5104 April 29, 1953 - IN RE: OSCAR ANGLO v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

    092 Phil 1006

  • G.R. Nos. L-5190-93 April 29, 1953 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. EMILIO BAYSA, ET AL.

    092 Phil 1008

  • G.R. No. L-5206 April 29, 1953 - CALTEX (PHIL.) v. PHIL. LABOR ORG., ET AL.

    092 Phil 1014

  • G.R. No. L-5394 April 29, 1953 - BERNARDO TORRES v. MAMERTO S. RIBO

    092 Phil 1019

  • G.R. No. L-5470 April 29, 1953 - WOODCRAFT WORKS, LTD. v. SEGUNDO C. MOSCOSO, ET AL.

    092 Phil 1021

  • G.R. No. L-5558 April 29, 1953 - ENRIQUE D. MANABAT, ET AL. v. HON. BERNABE DE AQUINO, ET AL.

    092 Phil 1025

  • G.R. No. L-5788 April 29, 1953 - CHUA BUN POK, ET AL. v. JUZGADO DE PRIMERA INSTANCIA DE MANILA, ET AL.

    092 Phil 1029

  • G.R. No. L-5826 April 29, 1953 - VICENTE CAGRO, ET AL. v. PELAGIO CAGRO, ET AL.

    092 Phil 1032

  • G.R. No. L-5948 April 29, 1953 - FORTUNATO F. HALILI v. PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, ET AL.

    092 Phil 1036

  • G.R. No. L-5969 April 29, 1953 - ALFREDO P. DALAO v. FRANCISCO GERONIMO

    092 Phil 1042

  • G.R. No. L-5989 April 29, 1953 - APOLINARIO DUQUE, ET AL. v. L. PASICOLAN, ET AL.

    092 Phil 1044

  • G.R. No. L-6079 April 29, 1953 - SOFRONIO GAMMAD, ET AL. v. MANUEL ARRANZ, ET AL.

    092 Phil 1048

  • G.R. No. L-6177 April 29, 1953 - GABINO LOZADA, ET AL v. HON. FERNANDO HERNANDEZ, ET AL.

    092 Phil 1051

  • G.R. No. L-4896 April 30, 1953 - APOLINARIO CRUZ v. PATROCINIO KELLY

    092 Phil 1054

  • G.R. No. L-5452 April 30, 1953 - FLORENTINO KIAMKO, ET AL. v. CIRILO C. MACEREN, ET AL.

    092 Phil 1057