Case Digest (G.R. No. 1136)
Facts:
The United States v. Lino de Castro, G.R. No. 1136. October 28, 1903, the Supreme Court En Banc, Cooper, J., writing for the Court. The complainant is the United States (appellee) and the defendant-appellant is Lino de Castro, sued as Municipal President of Pagbilao.De Castro was tried in the Court of First Instance of Tayabas on a complaint filed by the Provincial Fiscal alleging that, "in consideration of gifts of money, he permitted opium joints and gambling houses," in violation of the Penal Code (bribery). On November 10, 1902, the trial court convicted De Castro and sentenced him to four months' arresto mayor, ordered payment of an indemnification of 1,000 pesos, and taxed costs.
Before pleading, De Castro demurred to the complaint on four grounds: (1) the acts charged did not constitute a public offense; (2) the complaint failed to state the time of the alleged offense and the names of persons who gave the bribe; (3) it did not show that the offense was committed within the court's jurisdiction; and (4) it charged more than one offense. The trial court overruled the demurrer and proceeded to trial; the convicted defendant appealed to this Court.
On appeal the Supreme Court reviewed the sufficiency of the complaint under the procedural requirements set out in General Orders No. 58 (sections governing the form and content of complaints, demurrers, and amendments) and the substantive elements of bribery as defined in Articles 381 and 383 of the Penal Code. The Court reversed the judgment of the Court of First Instance, holding that the demurrer should have been sustained or the complaint a...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Did the trial court err in overruling the defendant's demurrer to the complaint on the procedural grounds that the complaint failed to state an offense, failed to conform to prescribed form, did not allege jurisdiction or time, and charged more than one offense?
- Did the complaint, as drawn, sufficiently charge the substantive crime of bribery under Articles 381 and 383 of the Penal Code by alleging that the municipal president abstained from performing duties (such as enforcing muni...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)