Scribd
Upload
240 views1 page

Digest 4 - Art 9 RPC

The defendant was accused of permitting the game of panchong or paikiu, a game of hazard, in violation of Article 195 of the Revised Penal Code. The lower court dismissed the case finding the offense was a light felony that prescribed after two months under Articles 90 and 9. The Solicitor General argued it was a correctional offense prescribing after 10 years based on Article 26. However, the Supreme Court affirmed the lower court's ruling, finding Article 9's definition of a light felony as having a penalty of arresto menor or fine not exceeding 200 pesos applied, making it prescribe after two months, rather than Article 26 which classifies fines. The Court found the Solicitor General's interpretation would

Uploaded by

Rochelle Gablines
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
240 views1 page

Digest 4 - Art 9 RPC

The defendant was accused of permitting the game of panchong or paikiu, a game of hazard, in violation of Article 195 of the Revised Penal Code. The lower court dismissed the case finding the offense was a light felony that prescribed after two months under Articles 90 and 9. The Solicitor General argued it was a correctional offense prescribing after 10 years based on Article 26. However, the Supreme Court affirmed the lower court's ruling, finding Article 9's definition of a light felony as having a penalty of arresto menor or fine not exceeding 200 pesos applied, making it prescribe after two months, rather than Article 26 which classifies fines. The Court found the Solicitor General's interpretation would

Uploaded by

Rochelle Gablines
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd

THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellant, vs. YU HAI alias "HAYA", defendant-appellee.

G.R. No. L-9598


August 15, 1956

FACTS:
On October 22, 1954, Yu Hai alias "Haya" was accused in the Justice of the Peace Court of Caloocan of a violation of
Article 195, sub-paragraph 2 of the Revised Penal Code, for having allegedly permitted the game of panchong or paikiu, a game
of hazard, and having acted as maintainer thereof, in the municipality of Caloocan on or about the 26th day of June, 1954. The
accused moved to quash the information on the ground that it charged more than one offense and that the criminal action or
liability therefor had already been extinguished; and the Justice of the Peace Court, in its order of December 24, 1954, sustained
the motion to quash on the theory that the offense charged was a light offense which, under Article 90 of the Revised Penal
Code, prescribed in two months. The provincial fiscal appealed to the Court of First Instance of the province, which affirmed the
order of dismissal of the information. Wherefore, the provincial fiscal appealed directly to this Court.

The pertinent legal provisions of the Revised Penal Code are:


"ART. 90. Prescription of crimes. - Those punishable by a correctional penalty shall prescribe in ten years, with the exception
of those punishable by arresto mayor, which shall prescribe in five years.
The crime of libel or other similar offenses prescribe in two years.
The offenses of oral defamation and slander by deed shall prescribe in six months.
Light offenses prescribe in two months.
xxx xxx xxx

'ART. 9. Grave felonies, less grave felonies, and light felonies. -


xxx xxx xxx
Less grave felonies are those which the law punishes with penalties which in their maximum period are correctional, in
accordance with the above mentioned article.

Light felonies are those infractions of law for the commission of which the penalty of arresto mayor or a fine not exceeding 200
pesos or both, is provided."

"ART. 26. Fine, when afflictive, correctional, or light. - A fine, whether imposed as a single or as an alternative penalty,
shall be considered an afflictive penalty, if it exceeds 6,000 pesos; a correctional penalty, if it does not exceed 6,000 pesos but is
not less than 200 pesos; and a light penalty if it be less than 200 pesos."

Under Article 90, supra, "light offenses prescribe in two months". The definition of "light offenses" is in turn to be found in
Article 9, which classifies felonies into grave, less grave, and light, and defines "light felonies" as "those infractions of law for
the commission of which the penalty of arresto menor or a fine not exceeding 200 pesos or both is provided". The offense
charged is punishable by arresto menor or a fine not exceeding 200 pesos (Article 195). Hence, it is a "light offense" under
Article 9 and prescribes in two months under Article 90.

ISSUE:
Did the court erred in considering the offense committed as alight felony?

RULING:
No, since the light offense as defined in Article 9 of the Revised Penal Code states that “an offense which penalty
arresto menor or a fine not exceeding 200 pesos.” The argument of the Solicitor general on the matter is erroneous since the
basis for his argument of classifying the offense committed as a correctional penalty, is Article 26 of the RPC which classifies
fine not offense. Also the Solgen’s interpretation of the law is accepted then it will lead to an absurd situation wherein in a light
felony as defined by Article 9 will have two prescriptive periods, and one peso will mean the difference of nine years and ten
months, and there is no reason for a law-maker to raise the prescriptive period for certain light offenses.

Therefore, it is more sensible to apply Article 9 over Article 26 since we are discussing the prescription of a crime not
the penalty. An as this construction is more favorable to the accused, it should be the one to be adopted. The decision is affirmed
with costs de officio.

You might also like