G.R. No. 41953 - FEBRUARY 1935 - PHILIPPINE JURISPRUDENCE CASE NUMBERCASE TITLE G.R. No. 41953February 27, 1935 People of the Philippines vs. Isabel Binuya, et al. G.R. No. 41758February 27, 1935 People of the Philippines vs. Lorenzo Gabay G.R. No. 43057February 25, 1935 Manuel Rivera vs. Court of First Instance of Nueva Ecija, et al. G.R. No. 42652February 25, 1935 People of the Philippines vs. Faustino Francisco G.R. No. 42522February 25, 1935 Raymundo Transportation Company vs. Laguna Tayabas Bus Company G.R. No. 43027February 19, 1935 Agno River Gold Dredging Co., Inc. vs. Dionisio de Leon, et al. G.R. No. 42804February 16, 1935 So Ping, et al. vs. Insular Collector of Customs G.R. No. 42290February 16, 1935 People of the Philippines vs. Gonzalo Fuentes G.R. No. 42288February 16, 1935 People of the Philippines vs. Cornelio Bayona G.R. No. 42935February 15, 1935 Felipe Regalado vs. Jose Yulo, et al. G.R. No. 42293February 13, 1935 People of the Philippines vs. Mamerto Ayre G.R. No. 42292February 9, 1935 People of the Philippines vs. Andres Delfin G.R. No. 40348February 2, 1935 People of the Philippines vs. Impit Gumaling The Lawphil Project - Arellano Law Foundation, Inc. People of the Philippines vs. Isabel Binuya, et al. People of the Philippines vs. Lorenzo Gabay Manuel Rivera vs. Court of First Instance of Nueva Ecija, et al. People of the Philippines vs. Faustino Francisco Raymundo Transportation Company vs. Laguna Tayabas Bus Company Agno River Gold Dredging Co., Inc. vs. Dionisio de Leon, et al. So Ping, et al. vs. Insular Collector of Customs People of the Philippines vs. Gonzalo Fuentes People of the Philippines vs. Cornelio Bayona Felipe Regalado vs. Jose Yulo, et al. People of the Philippines vs. Mamerto Ayre People of the Philippines vs. Andres Delfin People of the Philippines vs. Impit Gumaling The Lawphil Project - Arellano Law Foundation, Inc.

Republic of the Philippines
SUPREME COURT
Manila

EN BANC

G.R. No. 41953             February 27, 1935

THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS,plaintiff-appellee,
vs.
ISABEL BINUYA, ET AL.,defendants.
CONCEPCION CAPALUNGAN,appellant.

Inocencio Rivas for appellant.
Office of the Solicitor-General Hilado for appellee.

ABAD SANTOS,J.:

Appellant was prosecuted for theft in the justice of the peace court of Laoag, Ilocos Norte. Having pleaded guilty, she was sentenced to one month and fifteen days ofarresto menor. The judgment of conviction was rendered on November 20, 1933, and on the same date appellant was committed to the provincial jail. On December 4, 1933, she interposed an appeal to the Court of First Instance of Ilocos Norte, and was thereupon released on bail. In the latter court she again pleaded guilty, whereupon judgment was rendered which required her to pay a fine of twenty pesos, and to suffer subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency. Claiming that she was entitled to have credited against the subsidiary imprisonment thus imposed, the time she spent in the provincial jail from November 20 to December 4, 1933, appellant filed a motion in the court below for the purpose of having her claim recognized. From an order denying such motion, this appeal was taken.

Counsel for the appellant contends that article 29 of the Revised Penal Code is not applicable to this case, because the time spent by the appellant in the provincial jail was not preventive imprisonment. It may be added that appellant having been convicted of theft, she is not entitled to the benefit granted under said article in any case. Counsel, however, invokes the provision of the last paragraph of article 30 of the old Penal Code, and, in support of his view, cites the following authority:

It will be noticed that the authority relied upon by appellant contemplates a case where an amendatory code was silent as to a point expressly covered by the original code. In such a situation, the applicable rule is that in the construction of penal statutes, repeal by implication is not favored. (U.S.vs. Reyes, 10 Phil., 423; U.S.vs. Academia, 10 Phil., 431; Nicholsvs. Squires, 5 Pick. [Mass.], 167; Peoplevs. Bussell, 59 Mich., 104; Peoplevs. England, 91 Hun. [N. Y.], 152; 1 Lewis' Sutherland Statutory Construction, 2nd ed., 461; 5 Phil. Dig., 4208.) In the case before us, however, the penal code now in force is a complete revision of the old one and the rule is that where a statute is revised, or a series of legislative acts on the same subject are revised and consolidated into one, all parts and provisions of the former act or acts, that are omitted from the revised act, are repeated. (1 Lewis' Sutherland Statutory Construction, 519; 59 C.J., 922, 923.) And what is more, article 367 of the Revised Penal Code expressly repeals the old Penal Code. It follows that the omission in the Revised Penal Code of the last paragraph of article 30 of the old Penal Code is fatal to appellant's contention.

The order appealed from is, therefore, affirmed with costs against the appellant. So ordered.

Avanceña, C.J., Street, Hull, and Vickers, JJ., concur.