SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

Search for www.chanrobles.com

PLEASE CLICK HERE FOR THE LATEST ➔ SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

EN BANC

G.R. No. L-16135            October 19, 1961

NAPOLEON R. MALOLOS, Petitioner, vs. HON. ANDRES REYES, ETC., ET AL., repondents.

Ramon C. Aquino for petitioner.
Judge Andres Reyes for and his own behalf as respondent.

R E S O L U T I O Nchanrobles virtual law library

BAUTISTA ANGELO, J.:

In a decision rendered on February 25, 1961, this Court affirmed the judgment entered by respondent judge sentencing petitioner to suffer 10 days imprisonment and pay a fine of P100.00 incident to his conviction for direct contempt. He now moves, pleading for mercy, that this Court reconsider its sentence by eliminating the 10 days imprisonment even if he cannot be entirely acquitted of the charge for which he was convicted by the lower court.chanroblesvirtualawlibrarychanrobles virtual law library

In support of his plea for mitigation, he avers that soon after he was adjudged guilty by respondent judge he withdrew the alleged contemptuous statements and readily apologized and asked for his forgiveness, but his Honor sternly denied his plea; that he has been a member of the bar of good standing since 1940, is presently a professor of law in San Sebastian College and Arellano University, and a registrar and faculty member of the last mentioned institution, and that this is the first incident he has ever had as practitioner since he engaged in the practice of the law. He hopes that, considering the attendant circumstances, this Court might see its way to sparing him from the jail sentence which would forever be a stigma on him and on his family.chanroblesvirtualawlibrarychanrobles virtual law library

Considering that the utterances made by petitioner which respondent court found to be contemptuous are not as serious and derogatory as those made in other cases of similar nature wherein respondents were merely sentenced to pay a fine ranging from P100.00 to P200.00,¹ and the fact that this is the first incident he has ever run into since he engaged in the practice of the law, this Court resolved, not without dissent, to accede to his plea of liniency by eliminating the sentence of imprisonment imposed on him. In this sense, we hereby modify our decision rendered on February 25, 1961.chanroblesvirtualawlibrarychanrobles virtual law library

Bengzon, C.J., Padilla, Labrador, Concepcion, Paredes and De Leon, JJ., concur.
Reyes, J.B.L., J., reserves his vote.

Endnotes:chanrobles virtual law library

¹ Lualhati v. Albert, 57 Phil. 86; Salcedo v. Hernandez, 61 Phil., 742; In re Sotto, 82 Phil. 595: Intestate of Olba, In re Franco, 67 Phil., 312.