Back to Index
1909 / Oct

G.R. No. L-4934 - OCTOBER 1909 - PHILIPPINE JURISPRUDENCE CASE NUMBERCASE TITLE G.R. No. L-4934October 30, 1909 United States vs. A. C. V. Rosa, et al. G.R. No. L-5098October 29, 1909 United States vs. Venencio Monasterial, et al. G.R. No. L-4974October 29, 1909 United States vs. Nicolas Gutierrez, et al. G.R. No. L-5072October 27, 1909 United States vs. Santiago Austero G.R. No. L-4102October 26, 1909 Jose Cardell vs. Ramon Mañeru, et al. G.R. No. L-5227October 25, 1909 International Banking Corporation vs. Pilar Corrales, et al. G.R. No. L-5167October 25, 1909 United States vs. Julian Meneses G.R. No. L-5083October 25, 1909 Tomas Sunico vs. Jose Villapando, et al. G.R. No. L-4998October 25, 1909 United States vs. Jose C. Sedano G.R. No. L-4935October 25, 1909 United States vs. James L. Brobst G.R. No. L-5424October 24, 1909 United States vs. Prudencio Soto G.R. No. L-5297October 19, 1909 United States vs. Martina Bacas G.R. No. L-4606October 19, 1909 Juan Rodriguez vs. Findlay & Company G.R. No. L-4362October 19, 1909 Insular Government vs. Doroteo Nico, et al. G.R. No. L-3865October 16, 1909 Gregorio Fernandez vs. Manila Electric Railroad & Light Company G.R. No. L-5069October 15, 1909 Tan Chuco vs. Yorkshire Fire and Life Insurance Company G.R. No. L-4339October 11, 1909 United States vs. Ponciano Treyes, et al. G.R. No. L-4009October 11, 1909 Nicolasa Aringo vs. Urbana Arena G.R. No. L-5423October 9, 1909 United States vs. Serapio Poquis, et al. G.R. No. L-5138October 9, 1909 Jose McMicking vs. Domingo Tremoya, et al. G.R. No. L-4970October 9, 1909 United States vs. Serapio Artacho, et al. G.R. No. L-4846October 9, 1909 United States vs. Vicente Maquiraya, et al. G.R. No. L-4663October 9, 1909 United States vs. Pedro Cabola, et al. G.R. No. L-5332October 4, 1909 United States vs. Teodoro Baguio, et al. G.R. No. L-4602October 4, 1909 Juan Co, et al. vs. James J. Rafferty G.R. No. L-4526October 4, 1909 Tomas Fortuna vs. Rufino Viloria, et al. The Lawphil Project - Arellano Law Foundation, Inc. United States vs. A. C. V. Rosa, et al. United States vs. Venencio Monasterial, et al. United States vs. Nicolas Gutierrez, et al. United States vs. Santiago Austero Jose Cardell vs. Ramon Mañeru, et al. International Banking Corporation vs. Pilar Corrales, et al. United States vs. Julian Meneses Tomas Sunico vs. Jose Villapando, et al. United States vs. Jose C. Sedano United States vs. James L. Brobst United States vs. Prudencio Soto United States vs. Martina Bacas Juan Rodriguez vs. Findlay & Company Insular Government vs. Doroteo Nico, et al. Gregorio Fernandez vs. Manila Electric Railroad & Light Company Tan Chuco vs. Yorkshire Fire and Life Insurance Company United States vs. Ponciano Treyes, et al. Nicolasa Aringo vs. Urbana Arena United States vs. Serapio Poquis, et al. Jose McMicking vs. Domingo Tremoya, et al. United States vs. Serapio Artacho, et al. United States vs. Vicente Maquiraya, et al. United States vs. Pedro Cabola, et al. United States vs. Teodoro Baguio, et al. Juan Co, et al. vs. James J. Rafferty Tomas Fortuna vs. Rufino Viloria, et al. The Lawphil Project - Arellano Law Foundation, Inc.

Republic of the Philippines
SUPREME COURT
Manila

EN BANC

G.R. No. L-4934             October 30, 1909

THE UNITED STATES,plaintiff-appellee,
vs.
A. C. V. ROSA and SY CHUY CHIN,defendants-appellants.

M. Caringal, and E. de Lara for appellants.
Attorney-General Villamor for appellee.


PER CURIAM:

The defendants were convicted of the crime ofestafain one of the Courts of First Instance of the city of Manila on the 17th day of July, 1908. Both defendants appealed to the Supreme Court of the Philippine Islands from such judgment of conviction. The defendant Rosa subsequently withdrew his appeal and the sentence of the lower court was executed against him.

The penalty imposed by the trial court under said judgment of conviction upon the appellant Sy Chuy Chin was "five months ofarresto mayor. . ., to pay the offended party, Sr. Biunas, the sum of P53.70, or its equivalent in pesetas (268.50 pesetas), and to pay one-half of the costs of this action, suffering in case of insolvency, the corresponding subsidiary imprisonment."

The Supreme Court resolved the appeal of Sy Chuy Chin on the 20th day of September, 1909,1and affirmed the judgment of conviction of the trial court.

The appellant Sy Chuy Chin now asks for a writ or error to the Supreme Court of the United States upon the ground that this court committed an error in affirming the judgment of conviction and the sentence imposed thereunder.

The appellant makes the following assignments error on his application for the writ:

1. That the court erred in affirming the judgment and the sentence imposed thereunder by the trial court, especially in sentencing him to subsidiary imprisonment in case of his insolvency, said insolvency rendering him unable to return to Sr. Biunas, the party injured by the commission of the crime, the sum of 268 pesetas and 50 centimos, and to pay half the costs; because the first sum of 268 pesetas and 50 centimos is simply a civil debt in favor of said Sr. Biunas, and the payment of the costs is a civil liability in favor of the government; and there exists no law in the Philippine Islands which authorizes subsidiary imprisonment for the payment of a civil debt and for the payment of a civil debt and for the payment of the costs of the action.

2. That the court erred in affirming the said judgment and the penalty imposed thereunder in that it violated the provisions of section 5 of the Act of Congress passed July 1, 1902, which says: "That no law shall be enacted in said Islands which shall deprive any person of life, liberty, or property without due process of law or deny to any person therein the equal protection of the law;" because the imposition of subsidiary imprisonment by reason of insolvency is equivalent, first, to establish differences in the application of the law to the poor and to the rich, thereby permitting the rich to go free and the poor alone to suffer; and second, to imposing a penalty not provided for in the Penal Code of the Philippine Islands.

3. That the court erred in affirming the judgment and the sentence of conviction because the same violated the provisions of said Act of the Congress of the United States, section 5, in which it says:"That no person shall be imprisoned for debt;"because even supposing that the Spanish laws relating to subsidiary imprisonment are not abolished, it, nevertheless, is certain that the said Act of Congress prohibits the application of those rules and regulations which establish subsidiary imprisonment in default of the payment of an indemnity or debt.1awph!l.net

In his printed brief before this court (there was no oral argument) the appellant made the following assignment of errors:

The court erred:

1. In overruling the demurrer interposed by the accused Sy Chuy Chin against the information.

2. In declaring proved the facts alleged in the information against the said Sy Chuy Chin.

3. In declaring the said Sy Chuy Chin guilty of the crime ofestafa.

4. In not absolving the said accused — first, because the fact alleged do not constitute a crime, and second, because there was a failure of the proofs.

In his printed brief of 13 pages the appellant confined himself strictly to a discussion of the errors assigned.

Nowhere, either in the assignment of error or in the discussion thereof, did the appellant raise any of the questions now presented in the assignment of errors accompanying his petition for the writ of error. At no time during the course of the trial or in the appeal, presented and argued in this court was the remotest reference made to any of those questions. They were presented for the first time on his petition for the writ of error. The trial court had no opportunity to pass on those questions. This court has had none. The appellant is therefore not entitled to the writ upon the showing made. (Linfordvs.Ellison, 155 U. S., 503; South Carolinavs.Seymour, 153 U. S., 353;Ex parteMoran, 144 Fed. Rep., 594; same case, 75 C. C. A., 396; Lyonsvs.Bank, 154 Fed. Rep., 391; Maxwellvs.Federal Gold and Cooper Co., 155 Fed. Rep., 110.)

The application for a writ of error is denied.

Arellano, C. J., Torres, Mapa, Johnson, Carson, Moreland, and Elliott, JJ., concur.

1See Notes, post.