November 1956 - Philippine Supreme Court Decisions/Resolutions

Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1956 > November 1956 Decisions > [G.R. No. L-7617. November 28, 1956.] THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. PELAGIO G. YANGA, Defendant-Appellant.:




EN BANC

[G.R. No. L-7617.  November 28, 1956.]

THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. PELAGIO G. YANGA, Defendant-Appellant.

 

D E C I S I O N

PADILLA, J.:

This is an appeal, certified by the Court of Appeals for the reason that it involves only questions of law, from a judgment finding the Defendant guilty of unjust vexation and sentencing him to suffer 20 days of arresto menor and to pay the costs. He claims that the trial court erred in not finding that he had been placed twice in jeopardy; chan roblesvirtualawlibraryand that the crime with which he was charged had already prescribed.

It appears that on 10 October 1951 the Appellant was charged in the Municipal Court of Manila with the crime of light threats in an information which reads, as follows:chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary

That on or about the 4th day of October, 1951, in the City of Manila, Philippines, the said accused did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously threaten one Cristeto Remigio, by then and there pointing a revolver at the latter, the same not being necessary for his lawful self-defense. (Crim. Case No. B-72655.)

To this he entered a plea of not guilty. On 1 June 1952 the private prosecutor moved for the dismissal of the information on the ground that on 21 May 1952 another for grave coercion had been filed in the Court of First Instance of Manila against the Appellant. On 12 June 1952 the Court dismissed the information over the objection of the Appellant.

The information for grave coercion filed on 21 May 1952 in the Court of First Instance of Manila, amended on 26 May 1952, reads, as follows:chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary

That on or about the 4th day of October, 1951, in the City of Manila, Philippines, the said accused, without authority of law, by means of violence, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously compel Cristeto Remigio to do something against his will, by then and there holding the latter around the neck and dragging him from the latter’s residence located at 67 Lopez Jaena to the police outpost at the corner of Paz and Herran Sts., in the City of Manila, Philippines.

That the accused committed the said offense with the following aggravating circumstances:chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary

1.  Taking advantage of his official position, he being then a member of the Manila Police Department; chan roblesvirtualawlibraryand

2.  Taking advantage of his superior strength. (Crim. Case No. 18961.)

The Appellant contends that the dismissal of the information for light threats in the Municipal Court upon motion of the private prosecutor over his objection, after he had entered a plea of not guilty, is a bar to a prosecution for grave coercion.

The material allegations in the information for light threats are —

 cralaw the said accused did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously threaten one Cristeto Remigio, by then and there pointing a revolver at the latter,  cralaw

whereas the material allegations in the amended information for grave coercion are —

 cralaw the said accused, without authority of law, by means of violence, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously compel Cristeto Remigio to do something against his will, by then and there holding the latter around the neck and dragging him from the latter’s residence  cralaw

The evidence that would support a conviction for light threats under the first information would not sustain a conviction for grave coercion charged in the second. The crime of lights threats as charged in the first information is not an ingredient of the crime of grave coercion. Hence the Appellant was not placed twice in jeopardy of punishment for the same offense.

The Appellant claims that the crime of unjust vexation of which he was convicted had already prescribed. It is true that light offenses prescribe in two months. 1 In this case, the crime was alleged to have been committed on 4 October 1951. When on 10 October an information for lights threats was filed against the Appellant in the Municipal Court, the prescriptive period was interrupted. On 21 May 1952, or before the information for light threats was dismissed on 12 June 1952, upon motion of the private prosecutor, an information for grave coercion had been already filed in the Court of First Instance of Manila against the Appellant. The claim of prescription is, therefore, without merit.

The judgment appealed from is affirmed, with costs against the Appellant.

Paras, C.J., Bengzon, Montemayor, Bautista Angelo, Labrador, Concepcion, Reyes, J. B. L., Endencia and Felix, JJ., concur.

 

Endnotes:chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary

  1.  Article 90, Revised Penal Code.




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






November-1956 Jurisprudence                 

  • [G.R. No. L-9123. November 7, 1956.] THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. CORNELIO MELGAR, Defendant-Appellant.

  • [G.R. No. L-9023. November 13, 1956.] BISLIG BAY LUMBER COMPANY. INC., Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. THE PROVINCIAL GOVERNMENT OF SURIGAO, Defendant-Appellant.

  • [G.R. Nos. L-9238-39. November 13, 1956.] THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellant, vs. VICTORIO JABAJAB, accused-Appellee.

  • [G.R. No. L-10128. November 13, 1956.] MAMERTO C. CORRE, Plaintiff-Appellant, vs. GUADALUPE TAN CORRE, Defendant-Appellee.

  • [G.R. No. L-9523. November 15, 1956.] GALICANO E. YAP, Plaintiff-Appellant, vs. FRANCISCO BOLTRON, ET AL., Defendants-Appellees.

  • [G.R. No. L-9202. November 19, 1956.] THE COLLECTOR OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Petitioner, vs. JOSE AVELINO and COURT OF TAX APPEALS, Respondents.

  • [G.R. No. L-8717. November 20, 1956.] GENERAL FOODS CORPORATION, Plaintiff-Appellant, vs. NATIONAL COCONUT CORPORATION, Defendant-Appellee.

  • [G.R. No. L-8774. November 26, 1956.] In the matter of the testate estate of the deceased JUANA JUAN VDA. DE MOLO. EMILIANA MOLO-PECKSON and PILAR PEREZ-NABLE, Petitioners-Appellees, vs. ENRIQUE TANCHUCO, FAUSTINO GOMEZ, ET AL., Oppositors-Appellants.

  • [G.R. No. L-9098. November 26, 1956.] A. MAGSAYSAY, INC., Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. CEBU PORTLAND CEMENT CO., Defendant-Appellant.

  • [G.R. No. L-9551. November 26, 1956.] THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellant, vs. ALEJANDRO PAET Y VELASCO, Defendant-Appellee.

  • [G.R. No. L-9627. November 26, 1956.] MARGARITA ABARCA VASQUEZ, assisted by her husband, GUIDO N. VASQUEZ, Plaintiffs-Appellees, vs. ISIDORA LANDRITO MESAGAL, assisted by her husband, VENTURA MESAGAL, Defendants-Appellants.

  • [G.R. No. L-7644. November 27, 1956.] HENRY LITAM, ETC., ET AL., Plaintiffs-Appellants, vs. REMEDIOS R. ESPIRITU, as guardian of the incompetent MARCOSA RIVERA, and ARMINIO RIVERA, Defendants-Appellees. [G.R. No. L-7645. November 27, 1956] IN THE MATTER OF THE INTESTATE OF THE DECEASED RAFAEL LITAM. GREGORIO DY TAM, Petitioner-Appellant, vs. REMEDIOS R. ESPIRITU, in her capacity as judicial guardian of the incompetent MARCOSA RIVERA, counter-Petitioner, ARMINIO RIVERA, administrator-Appellee.

  • [G.R. No. L-9709. November 27, 1956.] CONCEPCION R. LIM DE PLANAS and ILUMINADO PLANAS, Plaintiffs-Appellants, vs. RICARDO L. CASTELLO, Defendant-Appellee.

  • [G.R. No. L-10060. November 27, 1956.] MARIA S. PASCUAL, Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. JOSE LACSAMANA, Defendant-Appellant.

  • [G.R. No. L-7617. November 28, 1956.] THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. PELAGIO G. YANGA, Defendant-Appellant.

  • [G.R. No. L-8437. November 28, 1956.] ESTATE OF K. H. HEMADY, deceased, vs. LUZON SURETY CO., INC., claimant-Appellant.

  • [G.R. No. L-8940. November 28, 1956.] CAPITAL INSURANCE & SURETY COMPANY, INC., Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. JOE EBERLY, Defendant-Appellant.

  • [G.R. No. L-8961. November 28, 1956.] ALTO SURETY & INSURANCE CO., INC., Plaintiff-Appellant, vs. ALEJANDRO ANDAN, UY SIOK KIAO, TAN LEE and QUIEN TONG, Defendants-Appellees.

  • [G.R. Nos. L-9391-9392. November 28, 1956.] RIO Y COMPA�IA (Succesor of Rio y Olabarrieta), Plaintiff-Appellant, vs. VICENTE SANDOVAL, MARIA R. DE SANDOVAL, and RAFAEL R. SANDOVAL, Defendants-Appellees.

  • [G.R. No. L-9476. November 28, 1956.] G. ASSANMAL, Petitioner, vs. UNIVERSAL TRADING CO., INC., Respondent.

  • [G.R. No. L-6584. November 29, 1956.] THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. GUIALIL KAMAD alias MORO JOSE, Defendant-Appellant.

  • [G.R. No. L-6897. November 29, 1956.] In the Matter of the Claim for Attorney�s Fees. CLARO M. RECTO, claimant-Appellee, vs. ESPERANZA P. DE HARDEN and FRED M. HARDEN, Defendants-Appellants.

  • [G.R. No. L-8502. November 29, 1956.] LEONORA T. ROXAS, Petitioner-Appellant, vs. ISAAC SAYOC, as Collector of Customs of Manila, Respondent.

  • [G.R. No. L-8508. November 29, 1956.] MARIA B. CASTRO, Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. SATURNINO DAVID, in his capacity as Collector of Internal Revenue, Defendant-Appellee. E. AWAD AND CO., INC., Intervenor-Appellant.

  • [G.R. No. L-9147. November 29, 1956.] RAFAELA CAMPO, ERNESTO GILUANO, REMEDIOS GILUANO, ROSALINA GILUANO, and FELIX GILUANO, Plaintiffs-Appellees, vs. JUAN CAMAROTE and GREGORIO GEMILGA, Defendants. JUAN CAMAROTE, Appellant.

  • [G.R. No. L-9352. November 29, 1956.] Intestate Estate of the late JOVITO CO, FLORA ROBERSON CO, Administratrix, Petitioner-Appellee, vs. COLLECTOR OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Defendant-Appellant.

  • [G.R. No. L-9657. November 29, 1956.] LEOPOLDO T. BACANI and MATEO A. MATOTO, Plaintiffs-Appellees, vs. NATIONAL COCONUT CORPORATION, ET AL., Defendants, NATIONAL COCONUT CORPORATION and BOARD OF LIQUIDATORS, Defendants-Appellants.

  • [G.R. No. L-9941. November 29, 1956.] PEDRO Z. CLARAVALL, Petitioner-Appellant, vs. FRANCISCO PARAAN, ET AL., Respondents-Appellees.