Title
Uy Chin Hua vs. Dinglasan
Case
G.R. No. L-2709
Decision Date
Jun 30, 1950
Petitioner charged with attempted bribery under *destierro* penalty; Supreme Court ruled municipal courts, not Court of First Instance, have jurisdiction. Writ of prohibition granted.
uy chin hua
dinglasan
attempted bribery
A

Case Digest (G.R. No. L-2709)

Facts:

  • Nature of the legal question
    • The Court addressed the question of original jurisdiction to try an offense penalized with destierro or banishment, whether it rested with the municipal court or the Court of First Instance.
    • The Court treated the petition for certiorari as one for prohibition.
  • Filing and allegations in the information
    • The petitioner (Uy Chin Hua) was charged in the Court of First Instance of Manila with attempted bribery.
    • The charge alleged that the petitioner offered P6 to patrolmen A. Caudal and L. de los Santos to induce them to refrain from arresting him for violation of the Price Tag Law (Republic Act No. 71).
    • The patrolmen rejected the offer and placed the petitioner under arrest.
  • Proceedings in the Court of First Instance
    • The petitioner filed a motion to quash on the ground of lack of jurisdiction.
    • The motion to quash was denied.
    • After the denial, the petitioner instituted the present petition to restrain the respondent judge from further proceeding, asserting lack of jurisdiction to take cognizance of the case.
  • Penalties discussed for the consummated and attempted offenses
    • The Court stated that the consummated crime of bribery or corruption of public officials is penalized by Article 212, in relation to the third paragraph of Article 210 of the Revised Penal Code, with arresto mayor in its medium and maximum periods.
    • The attempted crime was stated to be penalized two degrees lower than the consummated offense.
    • The Court computed that the resulting penalty for the attempted offense is destierro in its minimum and medium periods.
    • The Court further stated that destierro in the computed period means banishment from the present residence (not imprisonment) for not less than 6 months and 1 day and not more than 4 years and 2 months.
  • Internal division within the Court
    • The Court was unanimous that the Court of First Instance had no jurisdiction over the offense charged and that prohibition should issue.
    • The Court was not unanimous as to the reasons supporting the lack of jurisdiction.
  • Minority position (as stated in the decision)
    • The minority argued that if the scale provided by Article 71 of the Revised Penal Code is followed, the penalty for the attempted offense would have to be destierro.
    • The minority claimed this would produce an absurdity because the duration of destierro is from 6 months and 1 day to 6 years, which the minority considered co-extensive with prision correccional, and therefore a penalty higher than arresto mayor in the scale provided by Article 71.
    • The minority thus argued that the penalty of destierro should be applied only when it is specifically imposed and should be disregarded in the scale provided in Article 71.
    • Under that view, the minority concluded that the penalty imposable for the offense charged would be arresto menor.
  • Majority position and rationale (as stated in the decision)
    • The majority found no justification for disregarding the scale of penalties in Article 71 and for not applying destierro to the offense charged as prescribed by Article 51, in relation to the scale of penalties in Article 71.
    • The Court stated that disregarding the scale in Article 71 and applying destierro only to crimes specifically punished with that penalty (such as those mentioned in Articles 247 and 334) would amount to amending or changing the law, which the Court claimed it could not do.
    • The Court emphasized the duty to apply law and not tamper with it.
  • Additional reasoning in the majority decision
    • The Court declared that destierro is not higher than arresto mayor.
    • The Court distinguished the nature of the penalties:
      • arresto mayor means imprisonment or complete deprivation of liberty.
      • destierro means banishment or a prohibition from residing within a radius of 25 kilometers from the actual residence of the accused for a specified period.
    • The Court stated that the severities of arresto mayor and destierro must be judged by the degree of deprivation of liberty, not by the duration.
    • The Court asserted that penologists historically considered destierro lighter than arresto mayor.
    • The Court stated that this criterion appears both in the old Spanish Penal Code and in the Revised Penal Code.
    • The Court noted that in the graduated scale of Article 71, the lawmaker placed destierro below arresto mayor.
  • Jurisdiction under the Judiciary Act of 1948
    • The Court stated that the Judiciary Act of 1948 (Republic Act No. 296) does not expressly confer original jurisdiction on the Court of First Instance over offenses penalized with destierro.
    • Section 44 of Republic Act No. 296 provides that Courts of First Instance have original jurisdiction:
      • in all criminal cases where the penalty is imprisonment for more than six months, or a fine of more than two hundred pesos.
    • Section 87 of the same Act provides that justices of the peace and municipal court judges have original jurisdiction over:
      • offenses where the penalty is imprisonment for not more than six months, or a fine of not more than two hundred pesos, or both.
    • The Court identified a gap in the law as to which court has original jurisdiction over offenses penalized with destierro or banishment.
  • Resolution of the jurisdictional gap by interpretation
    • The Court stated that until the legislature fills the gap by expressly providing otherwise, the Court must resolve it by reasonable interpretation.
    • The Court adopted the interpretation that since the legislature placed offenses penalized with arresto mayor under the jurisdiction of justices of the peace and municipal courts, and since Article 71 places destierro below arresto mayor as a lower penalty, the legislature intended to place offenses penalized with destierro also under the jurisdiction of the justice of the peace and municipal courts, and not the Courts of First Instance.
  • Separate and concurring opinions (as stated)
    • MORAN, C.J. concurred in the result.
    • MONTEMAYOR, J. concurred in the result.
    • REYES, J. concurred in the result.
    • PABLO, BENGZON, and TUAZON, JJ. concurred.
    • MORAN, C.J. certified that Mr. Justice Padilla took part in the consideration and concurred in the majority opinion.
    • PARAS, J. concurred in the result and filed a separate concurring opinion setting out a different reasoning.
  • Facts and positions in the separate concurring opinion by PARAS, J.
    • PARAS, J. recited that the petitioner (Uy Chin Hua) was charged on August 10, 1948 in the Court of First Instance of Manila with attempted corruption of public officials.
    • The attempted corruption was alleged to have occurred through offering patrolmen A. Cudal and L. de los Santos the sum of six pesos so that they might refrain from arresting the petitioner for violation of Republic Act No. 71, but the police officers refused the offer.
    • The petitioner filed a motion to quash, arguing lack of jurisdiction.
    • The petitioner’s argument before PARAS, J. was that:
      • the consummated offense penalty under Article 212 in relation to the third paragraph of Article 210 is arresto mayor in medium and maximum periods, plus a fine not less than the value of the gift and not more than three times such value; and
      • therefore, the attempted offense penalty should be arresto menor in minimum and medium periods, with a fine not more than eighteen pesos, because the attempt penalty is two degrees lower.
    • PARAS, J. discussed the scale in Article 71...(Subscriber-Only)

    ...continue reading
    Unlock Full Case Digest

    Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
    Jur helps you analyze cases smarter to comprehend faster, building context before diving into full texts. AI-powered analysis, always verify critical details.

    About Privacy Terms