G.R. No. L-2597 - JANUARY 1906 - PHILIPPINE JURISPRUDENCE CASE NUMBERCASE TITLE G.R. No. L-2597January 24, 1906 United States vs. Juan Glefonea G.R. No. L-2426January 24, 1906 Fernando Montaño Lopez vs. Pedro Martinez Ilustre G.R. No. L-2387January 31, 1906 Oliver & Trill vs. W. E. Sherman G.R. No. L-2323January 31, 1906 United States vs. Natividad Pareja G.R. No. L-2295January 31, 1906 United States vs. Mateo Cruz G.R. No. L-2285January 25, 1906 Frederick Garfield Waite vs. Williams, Chandler & Co. G.R. No. L-2606January 22, 1906 United States vs. Santiago de los Santos G.R. No. L-2300January 22, 1906 United States vs. Antonio Mallari, et al. G.R. No. L-2239January 22, 1906 William Gitt vs. moore & Hixson, et al. G.R. No. L-1810January 22, 1906 J.W. Marker vs. Eulogio Garcia G.R. No. L-2580January 20, 1906 Unites States vs. Santiago Sevilla, et al. G.R. No. L-2586January 19, 1906 Tomas Guison vs. Maria Concepcion G.R. No. L-2345January 19, 1906 Robert M. Loper vs. Standard Oil Company G.R. No. L-2260January 19, 1906 Paula Roco vs. Estefina Villar y Rivera G.R. No. L-2253January 19, 1906 Mariano Garcia Martinez vs. Cordoba & Conde, et al. G.R. No. L-1641January 19, 1906 German Jaboneta vs. Ricardo Gustilo, et al. G.R. No. L-2244January 18, 1906 Leoncio Panaguiton vs. James J. Watkins, et al. G.R. No. L-2235January 13, 1906 Thomas Pepperell vs. B.F. Taylor G.R. No. L-2038January 13, 1906 A.M. Essabhoy vs. Smith, Bell & Co. G.R. No. L-1994January 11, 1906 United States vs. William Geroge Hollis G.R. No. L-1993January 11, 1906 United States vs. William George Hollis G.R. No. L-2587January 8, 1906 Carmelo Flor Bago vs. Dominga Garcia G.R. No. L-2542January 8, 1906 Margarito Toribio, et al. vs. Modesta Toribio, et al. G.R. No. L-1973January 8, 1906 Tan Dianseng Tan Siu Pic vs. Lucio Echauz Tan Siuco G.R. No. L-2178January 6, 1906 Sons of Isidro de la Rama vs. Estate of Teodoro Benedicto G.R. No. L-2151January 6, 1906 Salvador Brocal vs. Juan Victor Molina G.R. No. L-2021January 5, 1906 Aniceto Lorenzo vs. Jose Navarro G.R. No. L-1449January 5, 1906 Vicente Gomez Garcia, et al. vs. Jacinta Hipolito, et al. G.R. No. L-2567January 4, 1906 United States vs. German de Torres, et al. G.R. No. L-2555January 4, 1906 United States vs. Andres Salazar G.R. No. L-2397January 4, 1906 Lo Sui vs. Hardee Wyatt G.R. No. L-2236January 4, 1906 United States vs. Neta Shiyokishi G.R. No. L-2050January 4, 1906 United States vs. Rohilla Maru G.R. No. L-2030January 4, 1906 Alfred David Oehlers vs. Robert Hartwig G.R. No. L-3021January 2, 1906 Leonisa y Turralde, et al. vs. Albino Santos, et al. G.R. No. L-2227January 2, 1906 Maximino Espiritu vs. Jose Luis G.R. No. L-2070January 2, 1906 W.H. Tipton vs. Roman Martinez y Andueza The Lawphil Project - Arellano Law Foundation, Inc. United States vs. Juan Glefonea Fernando Montaño Lopez vs. Pedro Martinez Ilustre Oliver & Trill vs. W. E. Sherman United States vs. Natividad Pareja United States vs. Mateo Cruz Frederick Garfield Waite vs. Williams, Chandler & Co. United States vs. Santiago de los Santos United States vs. Antonio Mallari, et al. William Gitt vs. moore & Hixson, et al. J.W. Marker vs. Eulogio Garcia Unites States vs. Santiago Sevilla, et al. Tomas Guison vs. Maria Concepcion Robert M. Loper vs. Standard Oil Company Paula Roco vs. Estefina Villar y Rivera Mariano Garcia Martinez vs. Cordoba & Conde, et al. German Jaboneta vs. Ricardo Gustilo, et al. Leoncio Panaguiton vs. James J. Watkins, et al. Thomas Pepperell vs. B.F. Taylor A.M. Essabhoy vs. Smith, Bell & Co. United States vs. William Geroge Hollis United States vs. William George Hollis Carmelo Flor Bago vs. Dominga Garcia Margarito Toribio, et al. vs. Modesta Toribio, et al. Tan Dianseng Tan Siu Pic vs. Lucio Echauz Tan Siuco Sons of Isidro de la Rama vs. Estate of Teodoro Benedicto Salvador Brocal vs. Juan Victor Molina Aniceto Lorenzo vs. Jose Navarro Vicente Gomez Garcia, et al. vs. Jacinta Hipolito, et al. United States vs. German de Torres, et al. United States vs. Andres Salazar Lo Sui vs. Hardee Wyatt United States vs. Neta Shiyokishi United States vs. Rohilla Maru Alfred David Oehlers vs. Robert Hartwig Leonisa y Turralde, et al. vs. Albino Santos, et al. Maximino Espiritu vs. Jose Luis W.H. Tipton vs. Roman Martinez y Andueza The Lawphil Project - Arellano Law Foundation, Inc.
Republic of the Philippines
SUPREME COURT
Manila
EN BANC
G.R. No. 2597 January 24, 1906
THE UNITED STATES,plaintiff-appellee,
vs.
JUAN GLEFONEA,defendant-appellant.
Thomas D. Aitken for appellant.
Office of the Solicitor-General Araneta for appellee.
JOHNSON,J.:
This defendant was a member of the Philippines Constabulary and was charged with the crime of sleeping on duty. The court below, after an examination of the evidence adduced during the trial, found the defendant guilty of said offense and sentenced him to be imprisoned for a period of one year and to pay a fine of 300 pesos and to suffer, in case of insolvency, subsidiary imprisonment at the rate of one day for each 12 ½ pesetas, and to pay the costs. From this decision the defendant appealed to this court.
An examination of the evidence adduced during the trial of the cause in the court below is sufficient to justify the finding of facts that the defendant did sleep while on duty on the night of the 8th of March, 1905. However, taking into consideration all of the facts contained in the record submitted to this court, we are of the opinion that imprisonment for a period of three months and a fine of 50 pesos is sufficient penalty for the offense of which the defendant is guilty. The defendant was tried and convicted under the provisions of section 8 of Act No. 619 of the Philippine Commission. Said section provides:
Any member of the Constabulary who, while on duty as a sentinel, is found sleeping upon his post, or who leaves it before he is regularly relieved, shall be fined not exceeding five hundred dollars or imprisoned not exceeding one year, or both.
The inferior court imposed subsidiary imprisonment upon the defendant in case of insolvency. There is no provision for subsidiary imprisonment in the act creating the crime with which the defendant was charged. The provisions of the Spanish Penal Code, still in force in these Islands with reference to subsidiary imprisonment, have no application to crimes created by acts of the Commission. That part of the sentence of the inferior court which imposes subsidiary imprisonment is therefore hereby reversed.
It is the judgment of this court that the sentence of the inferior court be modified and that the defendant be sentenced to be imprisoned for a period of three months and to pay a fine of 50 pesos and the costs.
After the expiration of ten days let this cause be remanded to the inferior court for the execution of the foregoing decision. So ordered.
Arellano, C.J., Torres, Mapa, Carson, and Willard, JJ.,concur.