PEOPLE Vs Eugenio Y Garcia

THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs.
EUGENIO GARCIA Y
MADRIGAL, defendant-appellant.
1950-02-28 | G.R. No. L-2873
DECISION
TUASON, J.:
The sole question presented on this appeal is whether the appellant, 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. 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 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."
There are well recognized rules of statutory construction which are against the Government's contention.
One of these rules is that all parts of a statute are to be harmonized and reconciled so that effect may be
given to each and every part thereof, and that conflicting intentions in the same statute are never to be
supposed or so regarded, unless forced upon the court by an unambiguous language. (59 G.J., 999.).
This rule applies in the construction of a statute and its amendment, both being read together as a whole.
"An amended act is ordinarily to be construed as if the original statute has been repealed, and a new and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originally enacted in its amended form.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." (59 C.J.,
1096, 1097.).
We find 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 impossible 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
| Page 1 of 2
under given conditions.
At least there is no clear intention on the part of the Congress to amend article 68. Indeed the rational
presumption is that if there had been such an intention the lawmakers should have said so expressly,
instead of leaving the change to inference.
One other rule of interpretation that quarrels with the theory of implied repeal or amendment is that penal
law is to be construed, in case of doubt, strictly against the state. "Criminal and penal statutes must be
strictly construed, that is, they cannot be enlarged or extended by intendment, implication, or by any
equitable considerations. In other words, the language cannot be enlarged beyond the ordinary meaning
of its terms in order to carry into effect the general purpose for which the statute was enacted. Only
those persons, offenses, and penalties, clearly included, beyond any reasonable doubt, will be
considered within the statute's operation. They must come clearly within both the spirit and the letter of
the statute, and where there is any reasonable doubt, it must be resolved in favor of the person accused
of violating the statute; that is, all questions in doubt will be resolved in favor of those from whom the
penalty is sought." (Statutory Construction, Crawford, pp. 460-462.).
The offense charged in the information of which the appellant was found guilty is punishable under
article 294, case No. 5, of the Revised Penal Code, as amended by section 6 of Republic Act No. 18,
with prision correccional in its maximum period to prision mayor in its medium period. The penalty one
degree lower than this is arresto mayor in its maximum period to prision correccional in its medium
period. There being no modifying circumstance, the appropriate penalty in the present case is from 6
months and 1 day of arresto mayor to 2 years and 4 months of prision correccional. Being entitled to an
indeterminate penalty as provided in section 1 of Act No. 4103 as amended, the accused should be, and
he is hereby sentenced to imprisonment of not less than 4 months of arresto mayor and not more than 2
years and 4 months of prision correccional. In all other respects the appealed judgment is affirmed. The
appellant will pay the costs of this appeal.
Moran, C.J., Ozaeta, Pablo, Bengzon, Padilla, Montemayor, Reyes and Torres, JJ., concur.
| Page 2 of 2

PEOPLE Vs Eugenio Y Garcia

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

PEOPLE Vs Eugenio Y Garcia

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

PEOPLE Vs Eugenio Y Garcia

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs.

1950-02-28 | G.R. No. L-2873

You might also like