Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 148 views

    People V Garcia

    Uploaded by

    Parungao Sacdalan
    This case involves whether a 17-year-old defendant was entitled to a mitigated penalty under Article 68(2) of the Revised Penal Code after being convicted of robbery. The court ruled that while Republic Act 47 amended Article 80 to lower the age for probation, it did not impliedly amend Article 68(2) regarding mitigated penalties for offenders aged 15-18. Article 68(2) remains an independent provision granting mitigated penalties to minors sentenced to jail. The amendment of Article 80 did not change the degree of punishment or treatment of minors sentenced to jail.

    Copyright:

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

    People V Garcia

    Uploaded by

    Parungao Sacdalan
    148 views2 pages
    This case involves whether a 17-year-old defendant was entitled to a mitigated penalty under Article 68(2) of the Revised Penal Code after being convicted of robbery. The court ruled that while Republic Act 47 amended Article 80 to lower the age for probation, it did not impliedly amend Article 68(2) regarding mitigated penalties for offenders aged 15-18. Article 68(2) remains an independent provision granting mitigated penalties to minors sentenced to jail. The amendment of Article 80 did not change the degree of punishment or treatment of minors sentenced to jail.

    Original Description:

    Original Title

    People v Garcia

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    This case involves whether a 17-year-old defendant was entitled to a mitigated penalty under Article 68(2) of the Revised Penal Code after being convicted of robbery. The court ruled that while Republic Act 47 amended Article 80 to lower the age for probation, it did not impliedly amend Article 68(2) regarding mitigated penalties for offenders aged 15-18. Article 68(2) remains an independent provision granting mitigated penalties to minors sentenced to jail. The amendment of Article 80 did not change the degree of punishment or treatment of minors sentenced to jail.

    Copyright:

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

    People V Garcia

    Uploaded by

    Parungao Sacdalan
    This case involves whether a 17-year-old defendant was entitled to a mitigated penalty under Article 68(2) of the Revised Penal Code after being convicted of robbery. The court ruled that while Republic Act 47 amended Article 80 to lower the age for probation, it did not impliedly amend Article 68(2) regarding mitigated penalties for offenders aged 15-18. Article 68(2) remains an independent provision granting mitigated penalties to minors sentenced to jail. The amendment of Article 80 did not change the degree of punishment or treatment of minors sentenced to jail.

    Copyright:

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

    PEOPLE V.

    GARCIA

    G.R. No. L-2873

    28 February 1950

    TUASON, J.:

    FACTS:

    The sole question presented on this appeal is whether the appellant, being 17
    years of age at the time of 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. The lower court, ignoring defendant's minority, sentenced him to an
    indeterminate penalty of from 4 years, 2 months and 1 day of prision correccional
    to 8 years of prision 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 Pena Code, which provides that when the
    offender is over fifteen and under eighteen years age, "The penalty next lower than
    that prescribed by law shall be imposed, but always in the proper period."

    ISSUE:
    Whether or not the R.A No 47 , by implication, repealed article 68 paragraph 2 of
    the Revised Penal Code?
    Ruling

    No, Republic Act No. 47 amended article 80 of the Revised Penal Code by
    reducing the age of persons who may be placed on probation under that article, the
    amendment did not change in any form or manner the degree of punishment that
    should be meted out to those who are to be committed to jail or how they are to
    treated. After the minor is turned over to the court for sentence, article 80 ceases to
    have any interest in him or her. In saying that the 16-and 18-year old should no
    longer be given a trial or placed on probation in a reformatory institution but
    should go straight to prison upon conviction, Republic Act No. 47 does not, by
    implication or otherwise, connote that such minors should also be deprived of a
    reduced penalty. In no standard of statutory construction is there support for the
    proposition that the mitigating circumstance which minors between 16 and 18
    enjoyed before Republic Act No. 47 came into being, notwithstanding the fact that
    they had shown evidence of incorrigibility, should be denied them now for no other
    reason than that the right to be committed to a reformatory school has been taken
    away from them; now that they are confined in jail without having committed any
    fault other than the crime for which they were prosecuted in the first instance.

    Let it be remembered that by virtue of the amendment minors between 16


    and 18 do not now come under the provisions of the paragraph next to the last of
    article 80.

    Of course, the effect of a law amendment would different if the amendatory


    law had absorbed the law which it had amended. In that case, the original law
    become part and parcel of the new law, with the result that if the amendatory law
    be later repealed, both that law and the law which it had superseded or amended
    would be considered abrogated. There was no law of its own force could survive.
    But, as we have indicated, article 68 as well as its predecessor is an independent
    provision and has not been merged with article 80 or any other article of the
    Revised Penal code. It is an independent provision inoperative only during the
    suspension of the sentence but possessing all the vigor which article 85 of Spanish
    Code had, when the minors are sentenced to jail.

    You might also like