Case Digest (C.A. No. 227)
Facts:
The People of the Philippines v. Leon Castillo et al., CA‑No. 227, February 1, 1946, Supreme Court En Banc, De Joya, J., writing for the Court. The accused-appellant is Nena Tanalega Raymundo; co-accused included Dr. Leon Castillo (manager of Escudero Drug Store). The complaint was brought by Silvino Belarmino (the offended party / plaintiff-appellee).Chronology: On February 18, 1941 Belarmino presented to Escudero Drug Store a prescription by Dr. Antonio G. Sison calling for spartein sulphate, phenobarbital and carbromal, reduced to a one‑third formula. Dr. Castillo wrote "1/3 f." and later summoned Raymundo (a pharmacy graduate but not yet a board‑licensed pharmacist) to compound the formula. Raymundo computed the proportions and compounded five capsules which Castillo delivered to Belarmino; Belarmino took one capsule the same afternoon and soon became seriously ill. He conserved the remaining four capsules and, on February 24, 1941, sent two capsules to the Bureau of Science for analysis; the Institute of Hygiene report (March 15, 1941) showed the capsule contents contained strychnine sulphate instead of spartein sulphate (one capsule containing 50.5 mg; the other 61.75 mg). Medical testimony established symptoms and that the strychnine quantity could have been fatal but for the presence of phenobarbital and carbromal which mitigated the poison’s lethal effect.
Procedural history: An information was filed September 12, 1941 charging Dr. Leon Castillo and Nena Tanalega Raymundo with frustrated murder by poisoning through reckless imprudence. The Court of First Instance of Laguna, Presiding Judge Jose Ma. Paredes, on October 12, 1942 acquitted Castillo and found Raymundo guilty of frustrated homicide through reckless imprudence, sentencing her to four months arresto mayor. Raymundo appealed to the Court of Appeals of Southern Luzon. On June 10, 1944 the Court of Appeals (Justice Rufino Luna, concurred by Jugo and Vera) modified the judgment and found Raymundo guilty of slight physical injuries through reckless imprudence, imposing a fine of P200 and costs; the court omitted ruling on prescription as it considered the offense correctional in nature. Raymundo filed a motion for reconsideration (June 21, 1944) raising, inter alia, that no such “correctional” offense exists, that prescription had run under Article 90 of the Revised Penal Code, lack of proof of causation and of actual ingestion of strychnine, and alleged defects in the evidence.
The case was brought t...(Pro-only)
Issues:
- May the offense of frustrated murder or frustrated homicide be committed by means of reckless imprudence (i.e., is intent compatible with reckless imprudence)?
- If the evidence shows substitution of the prescribed drug with a poisonous substance, may the accused be convicted under Section 751 of the Revised Administrative Code (and punished per Section 2676) even though the information charged a Penal Code offense?
- Was the defense of prescription (statute of limitations) available and effective against the conviction under the pharmacy law?
- Did the accused receive due process (notice and opportunity to be heard) wit...(Pro-only)
Ruling:
- (Pro-only)
Ratio:
- (Pro-only)
Doctrine:
- (Pro-only)