Case Digest (G.R. No. L-8570)
Facts:
The People of the Philippines v. Dalmacio Salazar, G.R. No. L-8570, March 23, 1956, Supreme Court En Banc, Bengzon, J., writing for the Court. The plaintiff-appellant is The People of the Philippines (the fiscal of Bataan); the defendant-appellee is Dalmacio Salazar.On July 28, 1953 an information was filed in the Court of First Instance of Bataan charging Salazar with violation of Article 319 of the Revised Penal Code for having, between July 16, 1947 and February 1948, sold 75 cavans of palay mortgaged under the Chattel Mortgage Law to the damage of the Bataan Agency, Philippine National Bank, in the amount of P262.50. The trial court dismissed the information on the ground of prescription, concluding that the offense had been discovered prior to February 1948 and that more than five years had elapsed.
The trial court construed the offense as punishable by arresto mayor and therefore prescribing in five years under Article 90 of the Revised Penal Code. On a motion for reconsideration the prosecutor reminded the court that the statutory fine could be fixed at P525 (twice the damage), but the trial judge declined to alter the dismissal, reasoning that the subsidiary imprisonment applicable to a fine would not exceed six months under Article 39 and thus (in his view) the possible subsidiary imprisonment confined the penalty classification.
The fiscal appealed the dismissal to the Supreme Court. In the appeal the Government advanced two propositions: (a) that prescription is ten years because the offense may be punished by a correctional fine of P525 under Article 26 and (b) that if the prescriptive period were five years, prescription wou...(Pro-only)
Issues:
- Did the Court of First Instance correctly dismiss the information against Dalmacio Salazar as already prescribed?
- Is the applicable prescriptive period ten years because the offense could be punished by a correctional fine of P525 under Article 26 and Article 90 of the Revised Penal Code?
- If the prescriptive period were five years, does prescription begin only from discovery (as the prosecution...(Pro-only)
Ruling:
- (Pro-only)
Ratio:
- (Pro-only)
Doctrine:
- (Pro-only)