Location via proxy:   [ UP ]  
[Report a bug]   [Manage cookies]                
Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 448 views

    Guinhawa Vs People

    Uploaded by

    Jian Cerrero
    personss

    Copyright:

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

    Guinhawa Vs People

    Uploaded by

    Jian Cerrero
    448 views2 pages
    personss

    Original Title

    Guinhawa vs People

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    personss

    Copyright:

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

    Guinhawa Vs People

    Uploaded by

    Jian Cerrero
    personss

    Copyright:

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

    GUINHAWA VS PEOPLE

    Facts: Jaime Guinhawa was engaged in the business of selling brand new motor vehicles, including
    Mitsubishi vans, under the business name of Guinrox Motor Sales. His office and display room for
    cars were located along Panganiban Avenue, Naga City. He employed Gil Azotea as his
    sales manager.On March 17, 1995, Guinhawa purchased a brand new Mitsubishi L-300 Versa Van
    with Motor No. 4D56A-C8929 and Serial No. L069WQZJL-07970 from the Union Motors
    Corporation (UMC) in Paco, Manila. The van bore Plate No. DLK 406. Guinhawa’s driver,
    LeopoldoOlayan, drove the van from Manila to Naga City. However, while the van was traveling
    along the highway in Labo, Daet, Camarines Norte, Olayan suffered a heart attack. The van went out
    of control, traversed the highway onto the opposite lane, and was ditched into the canal parallel to
    the highway.The van was damaged, and the left front tire had to be replaced.The incident was
    reported to the local police authorities and was recorded in the police blotter.The van was repaired
    and later offered for sale in Guinhawa’s showroom. The couple decided to purchase the van for
    ₱591,000.00.On October 11, 1995, the couple arrived in Guinhawa’s office to take delivery of the
    van. Guinhawa executed the deed of sale, and the couple paid the ₱161,470.00 downpayment, for
    which they were issued Receipt No. 0309. On October 12, 1995, Josephine Silo, accompanied by
    Glenda Pingol, went to Manila on board the L-300 Versa Van, with Glenda’s husband, BayaniPingol
    III, as the driver. Their trip to Manila was uneventful.When Pingol complained to Guinhawa, the
    latter told him that the defects were mere factory defects.

    The trial court rendered judgment convicting Guinhawa guilty of the crime of Other Deceits defined
    and penalized under Art. 318(1) of the Revised Penal Code and imposed upon him the penalty of
    imprisonment from 2 months and 1 day to 4 months of Arresto Mayor. The CA affirmed.

    Issue: Whether or not it is proper for the MTC to provide a minimum penalty for the accused where
    the maximum penalty imposed is less than one year.

    Ruling: No. The MTC sentenced the petitioner to suffer imprisonment of from two months and one
    day, as minimum, to four months of arresto mayor, as maximum. The CA affirmed the penalty
    imposed by the trial court. This is erroneous. Section 2 of Act 4103, as amended, otherwise known
    as the Indeterminate Sentence Law, provides that the law will not apply if the maximum term of
    imprisonment does not exceed one year:
    In this case, the maximum term of imprisonment imposed on the petitioner was four months and
    one day of arresto mayor.Hence, the MTC was proscribed from imposing an indeterminate penalty
    on the petitioner. An indeterminate penalty may be imposed if the minimum of the penalty is one
    year or less, and the maximum exceeds one year. For example, the trial court may impose an
    indeterminate penalty of six months of arresto mayor,as minimum, to two years and four months
    of prision correccional,as maximum, since the maximum term of imprisonment it imposed exceeds
    one year. If the trial court opts to impose a penalty of imprisonment of one year or less, it should not
    impose an indeterminate penalty, but a straight penalty of one year or less instead. Thus, the
    petitioner may be sentenced to a straight penalty of one year, or a straight penalty of less than one
    year, i.e.,ten months or eleven months. We believe that considering the attendant circumstances, a
    straight penalty of imprisonment of six months is reasonable.
    IN LIGHT OF ALL THE FOREGOING, the petition is DENIED. The assailed Decision and Resolution
    are AFFIRMED WITH MODIFICATION. Considering the surrounding circumstances of the case, the
    petitioner is hereby sentenced to suffer a straight penalty of six (6) months imprisonment. The
    petitioner shall suffer subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency.

    You might also like