Case Digest (G.R. No. 24046)
Facts:
Jose Bactoso v. Provincial Governor of Cebu, G.R. No. 24046, September 25, 1925, the Supreme Court En Banc, Villamor, J., writing for the Court.In February 1925 Jose Bactoso (petitioner and appellee), a boy under 18, was accused in the justice of the peace court of Cebu of taking merchandise worth P0.70. The justice of the peace found him guilty and, because he was a recidivist, imposed the penalty of four months arresto mayor; however, having found that Bactoso was a minor the justice suspended execution of sentence and, invoking Act No. 3203 (Dec. 3, 1924), ordered his commitment to the reformatory at Lolomboy to remain until majority.
Bactoso filed a habeas corpus petition against the Provincial Governor of Cebu (respondent and appellant), then acting as provincial jailor, alleging unlawful detention because, he claimed, a justice of the peace had no power under the organic law to impose imprisonment exceeding six months (or a fine exceeding P200) and therefore could not commit a child to a reformatory until majority. The Provincial Fiscal answered asserting that the detention rested upon a final judgment of a competent court, that the justice’s order awaited only execution, and that section 3 of Act No. 3203 was a reformatory measure (not an additional penalty) and constitutional.
The Court of First Instance of Cebu conducted a trial (facts undisputed) and granted the writ, holding that under the organic law a justice of the peace’s penal power was limited to six months’ imprisonment or P200 fine and thus he could not commit minors to reformatories until majority; it ordered Bactoso’s release. The provincial governor appealed to the Supreme Court by appeal (...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Did the justice of the peace exceed his jurisdiction under the organic law by ordering the commitment of a minor to a reformatory until majority (i.e., was the reformatory confinement barred by the justice’s limited penal jurisdiction)?
- Is Section 3 of Act No. 3203 constitutional and, if valid, does it authorize courts to suspend proceedings and commit minors to reformatories as a r...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)