Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 2K views

    People of The Phils. Vs Garcia - My Digest

    Uploaded by

    Ma. Fe Roxane Siuagan
    Eugenio Garcia was found guilty of robbery at age 17 and sentenced to prison instead of a reformatory institution. The issue was whether his age entitled him to a mitigated penalty under Article 68. The court ruled that Article 68 and the amended Article 80 did not conflict, as the amendments did not impliedly change Article 68. Offenders ages 15-18 could still receive mitigated penalties in prison, and there was no inconsistency in sending some defendants to prison while others to reformatory institutions based on their age.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    People of The Phils. Vs Garcia - My Digest

    Uploaded by

    Ma. Fe Roxane Siuagan
    2K views2 pages
    Eugenio Garcia was found guilty of robbery at age 17 and sentenced to prison instead of a reformatory institution. The issue was whether his age entitled him to a mitigated penalty under Article 68. The court ruled that Article 68 and the amended Article 80 did not conflict, as the amendments did not impliedly change Article 68. Offenders ages 15-18 could still receive mitigated penalties in prison, and there was no inconsistency in sending some defendants to prison while others to reformatory institutions based on their age.

    Original Description:

    Original Title

    People of the Phils. vs Garcia- my digest.docx

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Eugenio Garcia was found guilty of robbery at age 17 and sentenced to prison instead of a reformatory institution. The issue was whether his age entitled him to a mitigated penalty under Article 68. The court ruled that Article 68 and the amended Article 80 did not conflict, as the amendments did not impliedly change Article 68. Offenders ages 15-18 could still receive mitigated penalties in prison, and there was no inconsistency in sending some defendants to prison while others to reformatory institutions based on their age.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    2K views2 pages

    People of The Phils. Vs Garcia - My Digest

    Uploaded by

    Ma. Fe Roxane Siuagan
    Eugenio Garcia was found guilty of robbery at age 17 and sentenced to prison instead of a reformatory institution. The issue was whether his age entitled him to a mitigated penalty under Article 68. The court ruled that Article 68 and the amended Article 80 did not conflict, as the amendments did not impliedly change Article 68. Offenders ages 15-18 could still receive mitigated penalties in prison, and there was no inconsistency in sending some defendants to prison while others to reformatory institutions based on their age.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 2

    [No. L-2873.

    February 28, 1950]


    THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff and appellee, vs. EUGENIO GARCIA Y MADRIGAL, defendant
    and appellant
    TUASON, J.:

    FACTS:

    Eugenio Garcia was found guilty of the crime of robbery. He was 17 years of age at the time of the
    commission of the crime. The lower court, ignoring defendant's minority, sentenced him to an
    indeterminate penalty of from 4 years, 2 months and 1 day of prisión correccional to 8 years of prisión
    mayor for the crime of robbery of which he was found guilty. He was also sentenced to pay the offended
    party, jointly and severally with the other accused, the sum of P85 as indemnity. Republic Act No. 47,
    which amended article 80 of the Revised Penal Code by reducing from 18 to 16 the age below which
    accused have to "be committed to the custody or care of a public or private, benevolent or charitable
    institution," instead of being convicted and sentenced to prison, has given rise to the controversy. The
    Solicitor General believes that the amendment by implication has also amended paragraph 2 of article 68
    of the Revised Penal Code, which provides that when the offender is over fifteen and under eighteen years
    of age, "the penalty next lower than that prescribed by law shall be imposed, but always in the proper
    period."

    ISSUE:

    Whether or not Garcia being 17 years of age at the time of the commission of the crime, was
    entitled to the privileged Mitigating Circumstance of Article 68, Paragraph 2 of the Revised Penal Code.

    RULING:

    No.

    All parts of a statute are to be harmonized and reconciled so that effect may be given to each and
    every part thereof, and conflicting intentions in the same statute are never to be supposed or so regarded,
    unless forced upon the court by an unambiguous language.

    "An amended act is ordinarily to be construed as if the original statute has been repealed, and a
    new and independent act in the amended form had been adopted in its stead; or, as frequently stated by
    the courts, so far as regards any action after the adoption of the amendment, as if the statute had been
    originally enacted in its amended form. The amendment becomes a part of the original statute as if it had
    always been contained therein, unless such amendment involves the abrogation of contractual relations
    between the state and others. Where an amendment leaves certain portions of the original act
    unchanged, such portions are continued in force, with the same meaning and effect they had before the
    amendment. So where an amendatory act provides that an existing statute shall be amended to read as
    recited in the amendatory act, such portions of the existing law as are retained, either literally or
    substantially, are regarded as a continuation of the existing law, and not as a new enactment."

    There is no irreconcilable conflict between article 68, paragraph 2, as it now stands and article 80
    as amended. There is no incompatibility between granting accused of the ages of 15 to 18 a privileged
    mitigating circumstance and fixing at 16 the maximum age of persons who are to be placed in a
    reformatory institution. In other words, there is no inconsistency between sending defendants of certain
    ages to prison and giving them a penalty lower than the imposable one on adults under the same or similar
    circumstances. Let it be remembered that the privilege of article 68, supra, is not by its nature inherent in
    age but purely statutory and conventional, and that this privilege is granted adult offenders under given
    conditions.

    MA. FE ROXANE M. SIUAGAN


    JD5-1C
    STATCON
    ATTY. DOT GANCAYCO

    You might also like