November 1954 - Philippine Supreme Court Decisions/Resolutions
Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence
Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1954 > November 1954 Decisions >
G.R. No. L-6494 November 24, 1954 - EUGENIO ANGELES v. HONORABLE FRANCISCO E. JOSE
096 Phil 151:
096 Phil 151:
EN BANC
[G.R. No. L-6494. November 24, 1954.]
EUGENIO ANGELES, ETC., ET AL., Petitioners, v. HONORABLE FRANCISCO E. JOSE, ET AL., Respondents.
City Fiscal Eugenio Angeles and Assistant Fiscals Atanacio R. Ombac and Lorenzo Relova in their own behalf.
Jover Ledesma & Puno for Respondents.
SYLLABUS
1. CRIMINAL LAW; COMPLEX CRIME OF PHYSICAL INJURIES AND DAMAGE TO PROPERTY; INFORMATION CAN NOT BE SPLIT INTO TWO. — Where both physical injuries and the damage to property were caused by one single act of the defendant, the information cannot be split into two — one for physical injuries and another for damage to property.
2. ID.; ID.; PENALTY FOR. — When the execution of the act shall have resulted only in damage to property, the amount fixed in article 365 of the Revised Penal Code shall be imposed as a fine; but if physical injuries have also been caused, there should be an additional penalty for the latter.
2. ID.; ID.; PENALTY FOR. — When the execution of the act shall have resulted only in damage to property, the amount fixed in article 365 of the Revised Penal Code shall be imposed as a fine; but if physical injuries have also been caused, there should be an additional penalty for the latter.
D E C I S I O N
JUGO, J.:
Domingo Mejia y Soriano was charged before the Court of First Instance of Manila with the crime of damage to property in the sum of P654.22, and with less serious physical injuries through reckless negligence, committed in one single act. After the preliminary investigation, upon motion of the defense, the respondent court dismissed the case on the ground that the penalty prescribed by article 365 of the Revised Penal Code is only arresto mayor in its minimum and medium period which is within the exclusive jurisdiction of the municipal court. On the other hand, it is contended by the prosecution that the fine that may be imposed by the court on account of the damage to property through reckless negligence is from a sum equal to the amount of the damage to three times such amount, which shall in no case be less than P25. The respondent court, however, relies on the wording of the third paragraph of said article, which reads as follows:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph
"When the execution of the act covered by this article shall have only resulted in damage to the property of another, the offender shall be punished by a fine ranging from an amount equal to the value of said damage to three times such value, but which shall in no case be less than 25 pesos."cralaw virtua1aw library
The above-quoted provision simply means that if there is only damage to property the amount fixed therein shall be imposed, but if there are also physical injuries there should be an additional penalty for the latter. The information cannot be split into two; one for the physical injuries, and another for the damage to property, for both the injuries and the damage committed were caused by one single act of the defendant and constitute what may be called a complex crime of physical injuries and damage to property. It is clear that the fine fixed by law in this case is beyond the jurisdiction of the municipal court and within that of the court of first instance.
In view of the foregoing, the order of dismissal is hereby set aside, and the case remanded to the trial court for further proceedings, without pronouncement as to costs.
Paras, C.J., Pablo, Bengzon, Padilla, Montemayor, Reyes, A., Bautista Angelo, Concepcion and Reyes, J.B.L., JJ., concur.
"When the execution of the act covered by this article shall have only resulted in damage to the property of another, the offender shall be punished by a fine ranging from an amount equal to the value of said damage to three times such value, but which shall in no case be less than 25 pesos."cralaw virtua1aw library
The above-quoted provision simply means that if there is only damage to property the amount fixed therein shall be imposed, but if there are also physical injuries there should be an additional penalty for the latter. The information cannot be split into two; one for the physical injuries, and another for the damage to property, for both the injuries and the damage committed were caused by one single act of the defendant and constitute what may be called a complex crime of physical injuries and damage to property. It is clear that the fine fixed by law in this case is beyond the jurisdiction of the municipal court and within that of the court of first instance.
In view of the foregoing, the order of dismissal is hereby set aside, and the case remanded to the trial court for further proceedings, without pronouncement as to costs.
Paras, C.J., Pablo, Bengzon, Padilla, Montemayor, Reyes, A., Bautista Angelo, Concepcion and Reyes, J.B.L., JJ., concur.
