Title
People vs. Salazar
Case
G.R. No. L-8570
Decision Date
Mar 23, 1956
Dalmacio Salazar charged for selling mortgaged palay; lower court dismissed, citing 5-year prescription. Supreme Court ruled 10-year prescription applies due to correctional penalty, reversing dismissal.

Case Summary (G.R. No. L-8570)

Key Details of the Case

The fiscal of Bataan filed a complaint against Dalmacio Salazar, alleging that between July 16, 1947, and February 1948, Salazar unlawfully sold 75 cavanes of palay mortgaged to the Bataan Agency of the Philippine National Bank, without obtaining the necessary consent from the mortgagee. The amount claimed for damages by the bank was P262.50. However, the court of first instance dismissed the complaint, ruling that the offense had already prescribed due to the lapse of time.

Applicable Law on Prescription

The case examines two critical provisions in the Revised Penal Code related to the prescription of crimes. Article 90 states that crimes punishable by correctional penalty shall prescribe in ten years, while offenses punishable by arresto mayor shall have a prescriptive period of five years. The penalty under Article 319 for unauthorized sale of mortgaged property includes both arresto mayor and a fine, specifically identifying the sale of mortgaged items without consent.

Court's Findings on Prescriptive Period

The lower court determined that since the offense must have been discovered prior to February 1948 and since more than five years had passed from that date, the prosecution's claim was barred by the statute of limitations. Upon reconsideration, the court explained that the appropriate prescriptive period, considering the potential for a fine of P525 (twice the value of P262.50), should be ten years, as it fell under the category of a correctional penalty, thereby contradicting its own earlier ruling regarding the five-year period.

Government's Appeal and Legal Reasoning

The government contested the dismissal primarily on two grounds: firstly, asserting that the offense was indeed a correctional penalty and therefore prescribed in ten years and, secondly, positing that, even if the five-year period was applicable, it should commence from the discovery of the crime, which the prosecution argued occurred in January 1953. The court found merit in the government’s first proposition, ruling that the nat

...continue reading

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur helps you analyze cases smarter to comprehend faster—building context before diving into full texts.