Facts:

The case G.R. No. 39222 involves the People of the Philippine Islands as the plaintiff and appellee against Serafin Sahagun, the defendant and appellant. The events leading to this case transpired in Pampanga, where the Court of First Instance rendered a decision on February 10, 1933. The case was subsequently appealed to a higher court. The trial court found Serafin Sahagun guilty of a crime, leading to a sentence that included a penalty ranging from six months of arresto mayor to six years of prision correccional. Additionally, the court ordered Sahagun to pay costs amounting to P24.00, which the trial judge was instructed to collect through summary proceedings. The appeal was submitted for decision, and after careful consideration, the higher court affirmed the lower court's ruling...

Facts:

1. Parties Involved:

   • Plaintiff and Appellee: The People of the Philippine Islands.
   • Defendant and Appellant: Serafin Sahagun.

2. Jurisdiction and Venue:

   • The case was tried in the Court of First Instance of Pampanga.
   • The Supreme Court of the Philippines acquired jurisdiction over the appeal.

3. Nature of the Case:

   • The case involves a criminal offense, with the defendant appealing the decision of the lower court.

4. Lower Court Decision:

   • The Court of First Instance of Pampanga rendered a decision on February 10, 1933, convicting the defendant.
   • The defendant was sentenced to a penalty ranging from six (6) months of arresto mayor to six (6) years of prision correccional.

5. Costs Imposed:

   • The defendant was ordered to pay costs amounting to P24.00, to be collected through summary proceedings.

6. Appeal:

   • The defendant appealed the decision to the Supreme Court.

Issue:

• (Unlock)

Ruling:

• (Unlock)

Ratio:

1. Affirmation of Lower Court Decision:

   • The Supreme Court found no reversible error in the decision of the lower court. The evidence presented was sufficient to support the conviction of the defendant.

2. Appropriateness of the Penalty:

   • The penalty imposed by the lower court was deemed appropriate given the nature of the offense and the circumstances surrounding the case.

3. Costs and Summary Proceedings:

   • The imposition of costs and the directive for summary proceedings were in accordance with the law and procedural rules.

4. Jurisdiction and Finality of Decision:

   • The Supreme Court, having regularly acquired jurisdiction, affirmed the lower court's decision, making it final and executory.