US v Jeffrey |15 Phil. 391|March 5, 1910


Facts: While Teodorica Saguisin was in a Chinese shop a man named D.B. Jeffrey appeared and without any apparent reason whatever, struck the woman 3 times on the hip with a bottle that he was carrying, in consequence of which the woman fell to the ground with an abundant hemorrhage from the womb; she was immediately taken to her home in a carretela, and being eight months pregnant she had a miscarriage in the following day, according to the examination made by the president of the Municipal board of health, as seen by the said physician certified the fact of abortion. The provincial fiscal with the CFI charged D.B. Jeffrey with the crime of Lesiones menos graves, whereupon trial and conviction was instituted. From this judgment defendant’s counsel has appealed.

Issue: WON D.B. Jeffrey can be lawfully sentenced for the crime of abortion, having been accused of a different crime.

Ruling: Even though it was not the criminal intent of the defendant to cause the abortion, the fact that, without any apparent reason whatever, he maltreated Teodorica Saguisin, presumably not knowing that she was pregnant, as author of the abuse which caused the miscarriage, he is liable not only for such maltreatment but also for the consequences thereof, to wit, for the abortion.
Hence, when the defendant was informed of the complaint, he at once understood that although he was charged with the crime of lesions menos graves, the charge also included the fact that he had maltreated Teodorica which leads to miscarriage. Because of the translation in English, the accused must have heard and known that the charge against him, which he denied and pleaded not guilty. It is perfectly just and legal that the penalty to be applied shall be that fixed by the law for the crime shown by the evidence and which the accused actually committed.
The court ruled that the judgment appealed from be set aside and penalty for abortion be imposed.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

People vs. Sunico, et al [C.A., 50 o.g. 5880]

FACTS: The accused were election inspectors and poll clerks whose duty among others was to transfer the names of excess voters in other precincts to the list of a newly created precinct.Several voters were omitted in the list.Because their names were not in the list, some of them were not allowed to vote. The accused were prosecuted for violation of Secs. 101 and 103 of the Revised Election Code. The accused claimed that they made the omission in good faith.The trial court seemed to believe that notwithstanding the fact that the accused committed in good faith the serious offense charged, the latter are criminally responsible therefor, because such offense is malum prohibitum, and, consequently, the act constituting the same need not be committed with malice or criminal intent to be punishable. ISSUE: Is the act of the accused merely a mala prohibita? HELD: The acts of the accused cannot be merely mala prohibita - they are mala in se . The omission or failure to include a voter’s...
Read more

People v. Bautista [40 O.G. 2491]

FACTS: This case is by virtue of an appeal interposed by the Solicitor-General to the resolution of the Court of First Instance of Cavite dismissing said case for the following reasons: first, that the accused Sotero Peji Bautista was not given a preliminary investigation before trial; and second, that said accused had been twice put in jeopardy. The accused Bautista was charged by one Ong Loo in the justice of the peace court of Kawit, Cavite, with having violated the provisions of article 183 of the Revised Penal Code on May 30, 1935 by knowingly subscribing under oath a false affidavit. After the preliminary investigation required by law, the justice of the peace remanded the case to the Court of First Instance because it did not fall under his jurisdiction and he reached the conclusion that there were reasonable grounds to believe that the crime was committed by the accused. However , the provincial fiscal, filed another charging him with false testimony in a criminal case ...
Read more

Merencillo v People | 521 scra 31

Facts: Juanito Merencillo was charged of violation of Sec. 3 (b) of RA 3019 and Direct bribery. Petitioner demanded from private complainant Ma. Angeles Ramasola Cesar P20,000.00 in exchange for the approval of the Certificate Authorizing Registration (CAR). Due to the repeated demand of the petitioner and delaying the release of CAR, private complainant seek the help of the authorities. As a result, petitioner was caught in the entrapment instituted by the police. After trial, the RTC found petitioner guilty as charged. Petitioner appealed the decision to the Sandiganbayan which was denied affirming the RTC decision. Hence, this petition for review of certiorari, contending that he was twice in jeopardy when he was prosecuted for violation of Sec. 3 (b) of RA 3019 and for direct bribery. Issue: WON the petitioner was placed in double jeopardy. Holding: No. Section 3(b) of RA 3019 begins with the following statement: Sec.3 In addition to acts or omissions of public offic...
Read more