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

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 570 views

    Case Name THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, Vs - RESTITURO FALLER (Alias R. AGUILAR), Defendant-Appellant. Case No. - Date Ponente

    Uploaded by

    Kim B.
    The appellant, Restituro Faller, was charged with maliciously and willfully damaging another's property. The trial court convicted Faller of the lesser crime of damaging property through reckless imprudence and sentenced him to pay a fine. Faller appealed, arguing he was convicted of a different crime than charged. The Supreme Court held that reckless imprudence is simply a way of committing the crime of damaging property, and does not constitute a separate crime. It affirmed the lower court's decision, finding Faller was properly convicted of the crime charged in the information.

    Copyright:

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

    Case Name THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, Vs - RESTITURO FALLER (Alias R. AGUILAR), Defendant-Appellant. Case No. - Date Ponente

    Uploaded by

    Kim B.
    570 views1 page
    The appellant, Restituro Faller, was charged with maliciously and willfully damaging another's property. The trial court convicted Faller of the lesser crime of damaging property through reckless imprudence and sentenced him to pay a fine. Faller appealed, arguing he was convicted of a different crime than charged. The Supreme Court held that reckless imprudence is simply a way of committing the crime of damaging property, and does not constitute a separate crime. It affirmed the lower court's decision, finding Faller was properly convicted of the crime charged in the information.

    Original Title

    People v. Faller_Digest

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    The appellant, Restituro Faller, was charged with maliciously and willfully damaging another's property. The trial court convicted Faller of the lesser crime of damaging property through reckless imprudence and sentenced him to pay a fine. Faller appealed, arguing he was convicted of a different crime than charged. The Supreme Court held that reckless imprudence is simply a way of committing the crime of damaging property, and does not constitute a separate crime. It affirmed the lower court's decision, finding Faller was properly convicted of the crime charged in the information.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf or txt
    570 views1 page

    Case Name THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, Vs - RESTITURO FALLER (Alias R. AGUILAR), Defendant-Appellant. Case No. - Date Ponente

    Uploaded by

    Kim B.
    The appellant, Restituro Faller, was charged with maliciously and willfully damaging another's property. The trial court convicted Faller of the lesser crime of damaging property through reckless imprudence and sentenced him to pay a fine. Faller appealed, arguing he was convicted of a different crime than charged. The Supreme Court held that reckless imprudence is simply a way of committing the crime of damaging property, and does not constitute a separate crime. It affirmed the lower court's decision, finding Faller was properly convicted of the crime charged in the information.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf or txt
    You are on page 1of 1

    Case Name THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs . RESTITURO FALLER (alias R.

    AGUILAR), defendant-appellant.
    Case No. | Date G.R. No. 45964 | April 26, 1939
    Ponente AVANCEÑA, C.J

    FACTS:
    • Resti tuto Faller was charge d with the crime of damage caused to another' s property maliciousl y and willfully.
    • After hearing the evidence, the Court of First Instance of Rizal found that the damage was not cause d maliciousl y
    and willfully, but through reckless imprude nce, and sente nce d Restituto Faller, under paragraph 3 of article 365 of
    the Revised Penal Code, as principal in the crime of damage through reckless imprude nce, to pay a fine of P38 and
    to indemni fy the offende d party Ramon Diokno in the same amount, with subsidi ary imprisonme nt in case of
    insolve ncy.
    • From this decision, an appe al was take n. In this instance the appellant assigns as sole error of the court the fact
    that he was sente nce d for a crime with which he was not charge d, conte ndi ng that a crime maliciousl y and
    willfully commi tte d is different from that commi tte d through reckless imprude nce .
    ISSUE:
    1. Whethe r the Court of First Instance erred in sente ncing him for a crime he was not charge d
    (Whe the r a crime “malici ousl y and willfully commi tte d is differe nt from that commi tte d through reckless
    imprudence.)
    HELD:
    1. NO. The court has not committed this error. The appellant was convicted of the same crime of damage to
    property with which he is charged. Reckless imprudence is not a crime in itself. It is simply a way of committing it
    and merely determines a lower degree of criminal liability. The information alleges that the appellant acted
    willfully, maliciously, unlawfully and criminally. To this information no objection was interposed. Negligence
    being a punishable criminal act when it results in a crime, the allegation in the information that the appellant
    also committed the acts charged unlawfully and criminally includes the charge that he acted with negligence.

    SEPARATE OPINION:
    LAUREL, J., concurring:
    • Two reasons why the decision of the lower court should be affirmed.
    - First, because the constitutional and legal purpose has been amply served in this case , it appearing that the
    accused himself, in the course of the trial, put up the defense that he was at most responsible for the offense of
    damage to property by reckless imprudence.

    [this part cut from CDAsia copy; got from lawphil]


    - Secondly, assuming that the two offenses here are distinct, they are at least akin to each other so as to justify
    the application of the rule laid down in United States vs. Solis (7 Phil., 195), and United States vs. Quevengco (2
    Phil., 412),

    You might also like