Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1957 > December 1957 Decisions > G.R. No. L-7705 December 24, 1957 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. MIGUEL GERVACIO

102 Phil 687:




PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

EN BANC

[G.R. No. L-7705. December 24, 1957.]

THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. MIGUEL GERVACIO, Defendant-Appellant.

Acting Solicitor General Guillermo E. Torres and Solicitor Pacifico P. de Castro for Appellee.

Felino C. Marcelo for Appellant.


SYLLABUS


1. criminal law; "Estafa" ; ACCEPTANCE OF PARTIAL PAYMENT BY THE OFFENDED PARTY; EFFECT ON THE CRIMINAL LIABILITY. — The act of the appellant consists in misappropriating, misapplying or converting the tickets or their value with unfaithfulness or abuse of confidence, which is an offense defined in the law (Article 315 1 (b), Revised Penal Code). Acceptance of partial payment by the offended party is not one of the means for extinguishing criminal liability (Camus v. Court of Appeals, Et. Al. 48 Off. Gaz., 3898). A criminal offense is committed against the People and the offended party may not waive or extinguish the criminal liability that the law imposes for the commission of the offense.

2. ID.; ID.; PENALTY; AUTHORITY OF COURT TO ADJUST PENALTY. — Courts are not authorize to adjust penalties according to the changing value of the legal currency, as this clearly falls within the province of the Legislature.


D E C I S I O N


LABRADOR, J.:


Appeal from a judgment of the Court of First Instance of Manila, finding the appellant guilty of the crime of estafa and sentencing him to imprisonment for a period of six months and one day of prision correccional, to indemnify the Philippine Charity Sweepstakes Office in the sum of P9,060, with subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency, and to pay the costs. Only the following questions of law are raised in the appeal:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"I. The lower court erred in not considering this case as civil, particularly because of a partial payment admitted in the decision; and

"II. The lower court erred in imposing on the accused the penalty prescribed in the 2nd paragraph of Article 315 of the Revised Penal Code, instead of that prescribed in Article 316 (3) or that in Article 318." (p. 1, Appellant’s Brief)

It is contended in support of the first assignment of error that the Philippine Charity Sweepstakes Office accepted partial payment; that according to the information the relation between the offended party and the appellant is one of agency, which cannot be the basis of criminal responsibility; and that the information does not charge an offense. It is not true that the information does not charge an offense because allegation is made that appellant received sweepstakes tickets from the offended party for the purpose of selling the same under the express obligation of making an accounting thereof and turning over the proceeds of the sale to the offended party, and that the appellant failed to comply with his obligation within a reasonable length of time and misappropriated, misapplied and converted the tickets or their value to his own personal use and benefit, to the damage of the offended party. Neither is it true that the obligation contracted by the appellant is a civil one; under the allegations the act of the appellant is characterized by abuse of confidence. The act of the appellant consists in misappropriating, misapplying or converting the tickets or their value with unfaithfulness or abuse of confidence, which is an offense defined in the law (Article 315, paragraph 1 (b), Revised Penal Code). Acceptance of partial payment by an offended party is not one of the means for extinguishing criminal liability (Camus v. Court of Appeals, Et Al., 92 Phil., 85; 48 Off. Gaz., 3898). A criminal offense is committed against the People and the offended party may not waive or extinguish the criminal liability that the law imposes for the commission of the offense.

In support of the second assignment of error, it is argued that the penalty is too strict and in accordance with general principles of law which demand a liberal application of criminal laws, the amount of P9,060 misappropriated should be considered only as falling under paragraph 3 of Article 315 of the Revised Penal Code, because the value of money since the fixing of the penalty in the Revised Penal Code in the year 1930 has considerably decreased. The argument is indeed novel, although there seems to be some reason therefor. It is true that about 27 years ago the value of the peso was very much more than its present value. However, courts are not authorized to adjust penalties according to the changing value of the legal currency, as this clearly falls within the province of the Legislature.

However, the penalty imposed by the trial court, which is that of six months and one day of prision correccional, is not in accordance with the provisions of law. The proper penalty is the indeterminate sentence running from 2 months and 1 day to 6 months as minimum, and from 1 year, 8 months and 21 days to 2 years, 11 months and 10 days as maximum.

The judgment appealed from is, therefore, hereby affirmed, but the penalty imposed is hereby modified and the appellant sentenced to 6 months of arresto mayor as minimum to 1 year, 8 months and 21 days as maximum. In all other respects the penalty imposed by the trial court is affirmed. Costs against Appellant.

Paras, C.J., Bengzon, Padilla, Montemayor, Reyes, A., Bautista Angelo, Concepcion, Reyes, J. B. L., Endencia and Felix, 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






December-1957 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. L-7763 December 2, 1957 - HONORIA DELGADO VDA. DE GREGORIO v. GO CHONG BING

    102 Phil 556

  • G.R. No. L-10263 December 17, 1957 - ASSN. OF DRUGSTORE EMPLOYEES v. ARSENIO MARTINEZ

    102 Phil 561

  • G.R. No. L-10787 December 17, 1957 - VISAYAN ELECTRIC CO. v. the CITY OF DUMAGUETE

    102 Phil 566

  • G.R. No. L-10795 December 17, 1957 - TEOTIMO OCHOTORENA v. the DIRECTOR OF LANDS

    102 Phil 570

  • G.R. No. L-10008 December 18, 1957 - SY KIAM v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

    102 Phil 575

  • G.R. No. L-11240 December 18, 1957 - CONCHITA LIGUEZ v. THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS

    102 Phil 577

  • G.R. No. L-9914 December 19, 1957 - CONCEPCION H. LUNA v. MONS. PEDRO P. SANTOS

    102 Phil 588

  • G.R. No. L-8451 December 20, 1957 - ROMAN CATHOLIC APOSTOLIC ADMINISTRATOR OF DAVAO v. THE LAND REGISTRATION COMM.

    102 Phil 596

  • G.R. No. L-10850 December 20, 1957 - DOROTEO ROMERO v. PEDRO VILLAMOR

    102 Phil 641

  • G.R. No. L-12820 December 20, 1957 - SMB BOX FACTORY WORKER’S UNION (PAFLU) v. HON. JUDGE GUSTAVO VICTORIANO

    102 Phil 646

  • G.R. No. L-9549 December 21, 1957 - MANILA TOBACCO ASSOCIATION v. THE CITY OF MANILA

    102 Phil 653

  • G.R. No. L-9646 December 21, 1957 - LAY KOCK v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

    102 Phil 657

  • G.R. No. L-7452 December 23, 1957 - JOSE A. ARCHES v. WILLIAM VILLARRUZ

    102 Phil 661

  • G.R. No. L-8259 December 23, 1957 - ANG MALAYANG MANGGAGAWA NG ANG TIBAY ENTERPRISES v. ANG TIBAY

    102 Phil 669

  • G.R. Nos. L-11128-33 December 23, 1957 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. RENE ESCARES

    102 Phil 677

  • G.R. No. L-11489 December 23, 1957 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. UY JUI PIO

    102 Phil 679

  • G.R. No. L-7593 December 24, 1957 - IN RE: Florencio P. Buan v. SYLVINA C. LAYA

    102 Phil 682

  • G.R. No. L-7705 December 24, 1957 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. MIGUEL GERVACIO

    102 Phil 687

  • G.R. No. L-7805 December 24, 1957 - PETRONILO CASTAÑEDA v. CATALINA M. DE LEON

    102 Phil 689

  • G.R. No. L-7840 December 24, 1957 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. MANUEL ABRINA Y MONTANO ET. AL.

    102 Phil 695

  • G.R. No. L-10182 December 24, 1957 - JOSE GEUKEKO v. HON. SALVADOR ARANETA

    102 Phil 706

  • G.R. No. L-11142 December 24, 1957 - ISIDORO P. AURELIO v. FIRST NATIONAL SURETY & ASSURANCE COMPANY

    102 Phil 714

  • G.R. No. L-6273 December 27, 1957 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JOSE HIDALGO y RESURRECCION

    102 Phil 719

  • G.R. No. L-11114 December 27, 1957 - CRESENCIANO TORREFRANCA v. FILOMENO ALBISO

    102 Phil 732

  • G.R. No. L-11435 December 27, 1957 - HON. MATEO L. ALCASID v. AMADO V. SAMSON

    102 Phil 735

  • G.R. No. L-7310 December 28, 1957 - ANTONIO MANIMTIM v. CO CHO CHIT

    102 Phil 741

  • G.R. No. L-8333 December 28, 1957 - GELACIO BODIONGAN v. HON. PATRICIO C. CENIZA

    102 Phil 750

  • G.R. No. L-8334 December 28, 1957 - BIENVENIDO BABAO v. FLORENCIO PEREZ

    102 Phil 756

  • G.R. No. L-10000 December 28, 1957 - IN RE: JOSE B. SUNTAY v. FEDERICO C. SUNTAY

    102 Phil 769

  • G.R. No. L-10036 December 28, 1957 - GENERAL AZUCARERA DON PEDRO v. CESAREO DE LEON

    102 Phil 784

  • G.R. Nos. L-10943 & L-10944 December 28, 1957 - ANGAT RIVER IRRIGATION SYSTEM v. ANGAT RIVER WORKERS’ UNION (PLUM)

    102 Phil 789