People of the Philippines v. Jorge Leynez
Supreme Court
Republic of the Philippines
SUPREME COURT
Manila
EN BANC
G.R. No. 45364 June 7, 1938
THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES,plaintiff-appellee,
vs.
JORGE LEYNEZ,defendant-appellant.
Julio D. Enriquez for appellant.
Office of the Solicitor-General Tuason for appellee.
DIAZ,J.:
Stated briefly, the question raised by the defendant's appeal is this:
If the crime of slight physical injuries committed is of the kind defined in paragraph 1 of article 266 of the Revised Penal Code and penalized witharresto menor, and the offender, after the commission of the crime, voluntarily surrenders to the agents of authority, and, when charged and arraigned, spontaneously pleads guilty, should the penalty be light fine or only public censure, having in view the rule established in article 64 that, when there are two or more mitigating circumstances without any compensating aggravating circumstance, the appropriate penalty to be imposed is that immediately lower?
The trial court held that it should be the first, while the appellant, with whom the Solicitor-General concurs, upholds the second.
The lower court, in meting out the indicated penalty, relied on the former text of article 71 of the Revised Penal Code worded as follows:
ART. 71.Fine. — The fine shall be considered as the last of all the principal penalties listed in the preceding article." It has undoubtedly missed the fact that Commonwealth Act No. 217, approved on November 24, 1936, substantially amended said article by clearly providing that the penalty immediately lower in degree thanarresto menoris public censure. The pertinent portion of the amendment reads:
ART. 71.Graduated scales. — In the cases in which the law prescribes a penalty lower or higher by one or more degrees than another given penalty, the rules prescribe in article 61 shall be observed in graduating such penalty.
The lower or higher penalty shall be taken from the graduated scale in which is comprised the given penalty
The courts. in applying such lower or higher penalty, shall observe the following graduated scales:
SCALE No. 1
1. Death,
2.Reclusion perpetua,
3.Reclusion temporal,
4.Prison mayor,
5.Prision correccional,
6.Arresto mayor,
7.Destierro,
8.Arresto menor,
9. Public censure,
10. Fine.
It cannot alleged that the legal provision in force at the time of the commission of the crime of which the appellant was convicted, was the original article 71 of the Revised Penal Code, for the reason that this circumstance does not bar the application of its amendment which is more favorable to the appellant; since the rule in these s is that penal laws always have a retroactive effect when they are favorable to the convict, the only exception being the case which treats of a habitual delinquent. (Art. 22, Revised Penal Code.) In view of these considerations, we reach the conclusion and so bold that the penalty immediately lower in degree thanarresto menoris public censure.
Wherefore, the appealed judgment is modified in the sense indicated, with costsde oficio. So ordered.
Avanceña, C.J., Villa-Real, Abad Santos, Imperial, Laurel and Concepcion. JJ., concur.
Related decisions
Decisions on similar questions that neither cites the other: they rely on the same precedents, are cited together, or apply the same law.
- Reodica v. CA1998both apply Act 217, CA 217 · Physical injuries
- L-9064-67 April 30 v. Alcaraz1958both apply Act 217, CA 217
- L-48895 September 4 v. Conwi1985both apply Act 217, CA 217
- L-4838 March 28 v. Dacanay1953both apply Act 217, CA 217
- L-1895 October 2 v. Koh1948both apply Act 217, CA 217
- L-1625 and L-1626 August 30 v. Lorenzo Pineda Union C. Kayanan for…1949both apply Act 217, CA 217
- L-12629 December 9 v. Torres1959both apply Act 217, CA 217
- L-10015 December 18 v. Marita Ocampo y Pure Office of the…1956both apply Act 217, CA 217
Laws it applies
Links and connections are read from the text by pattern matching, not checked by a person. A guide, not a finding.