Constitutional law 2 Rights of the accusedFull description
digest
consti2Full description
salazar v peopleFull description
people vs durango case digestFull description
Search and Seizures, Search Warrant can be severed.Full description
Full description
political law - double jeopardyFull description
Digest in Crim 2
Constitutional Law Bill of RightsFull description
CRIMCRIM
CaseFull description
Lumauig v. People - G.R. No. 166680 (July 7, 2014) Article 218 of the Revised Penal Code - Failure of Accountable Officer to Render AccountsFull description
G.R. No. 137405Full description
Digest of Comerciante v. PeopleFull description
No. 45964
People v Faller April 25, 1939
Avanceña, C.J.
Plaintiff/Appellee
Defendant/Appellant
People of the Philippines RECIT-READY:
Restituto Faller
NATURE OF THE CASE: Restituto Faller was charged of a crime of damage caused to another’s property maliciously and willfully and the court of first instance of Rizal. The court of first instance instance of Rizal sentenced sentenced him to pay a fine of 38 pesos and to indemnify Ramon Diokno with the same amount, with subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency. An appeal was brought to the Supreme Court FACTS OF THE CASE: Restituto Faller was charged with the crime of damage caused to Ramon Diokno’s property maliciously and willfully. The court of first instance of Rizal found that the damage was not caused maliciously and willfully, but t hrough reckless imprudence. So he was sentenced to pay a fine of 38 pesos and to t o indemnify the offended party (Ramon Diokno) in the same amount, with subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency.
Faller argued that he was sentenced for a crime he was not charged, claiming that a crime maliciously and willfully committed is different from that committed through reckless imprudence. The court did not commit this error. The information alleged that he acted willfully, maliciously, unlawfully and criminally. The allegation t hat Faller acted unlawfully and criminally includes the charge that he acted with negligence.Therefore, the judgment was affirmed. ISSUES: Ruling 1. W/N…Faller W/N…Faller was wrongly sentenced to a crime he was not charged NO with since he claims that a crime maliciously and willfully committed is different from that committed through reckless imprudence RULING/RATIONALE: 1. No. Faller was convicted of the same crime he was charged. The information alleges that the he acted willfully, maliciously, unlawfully and criminally. No objection to this was raised in the Supreme Court. The allegation that Faller acted unlawfully and criminally includes the charge that he acted with negligence. Also, Reckless imprudence imprudence is not a crime in itself, it is only a way of committing it and merely determines a lower degree of criminal liability. LAWS, STATUTES, CODES INVOLVED: Criminal law and Procedure; Malicous Damage to another’s property; Damage through reckless imprudence -under an information for malicious damage to another’s property, the accused may be convicted of damage through reckless imprudence. DISPOSITION:
The judgment was affirmed. Restituto Faller is sentenced to pay a fine of 38 pesos and to indemnify the offended party (Ramon Diokno) in the same amount, with subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency. DICTA RELATING TO DOCTRINE: Very important to note since the purpose of the cases is to relate them to the doctrines taught in class SEPARATE RULINGS: Concurring, dissenting, separate opinions if available CASES CITED IN CASE: Pang magis na hahaha. Cases cited by the justice in his decision. Maybe a brief summary or background of the case if it was important to the present case. If not, then just the quote or simply the title.
