Criminal Law Case Digest: People v. Santiago, 43 Phil 124 (1922)

CASE FACTS

Porfirio Parondo, a seven year old boy was instantly killed when an automobile the appellant was driving strike the former. The accused was driving at a rate of 30 miles an hour on a 6 meter wide highway, even though he had to pass a narrow space between a wagon and a heap of stones. The appellant did not take precaution/ vigilant care required under the circumstances that an ordinary prudent man would take to avoid accidents Gregorio Santiago was prosecuted for the crime of homicide by reckless negligence and was sentenced to one year and one day of prision correccional and to pay the costs of the trial.

The appellant alleged that the court committed four errors on the following:

1. The appellant was being prosecuted in conformity with Act No 2886 of the Philippine Legislature, which was unconstitutional, and gave no jurisdiction to the case.

2. The lower court erred in not dismissing the case upon presentation of evidence

3. The court erred in not finding that it lacked jurisdiction over the person accused and over the subject-matter of the complaint.

4. The court erred in finding the appellant guilty of the crime charged and in sentencing him to the above

ISSUE

Whether Act No 2886 under which the present case was filed valid and constitutional

Whether the court has jurisdiction over the subject matter of the complaint

Whether the use of People as plaintiff a defect in the title of the information

RULING

The provisions of sections 2 of General Orders No. 58, as amended by Act No. 2886, is not the same character as the provisions of a constitution. Act No. 2886 is valid and is not violative of any constitutional provisions and that the court a quo did not commit any of the errors assigned.

The power to legislate on criminal matters is an attribute of sovereignty, but such power is delegated to subordinate government subdivisions by principle of territoriality.

An indictment must, in many states under express statutory or constitutional provision, show by its title or by proper recitals in the caption or elsewhere that the prosecution is in the name and by the authority of the state, the commonwealth, or the people of the state, according to the practice in the particular jurisdictions; but omissions or defects in this respect may be supplied or cured by other parts of the records, and the omissions of such a recital or defects therein, even when required by the constitution or by statute, is a defect of form within a statute requiring exceptions for defect of form to be made before trial.

The sentence appealed was affirmed and sentenced to accessory penalties prescribed in article 61 of the Penal Code, and to indemnify the heirs of the deceased in the sum of P1,000 and to the payment of the costs of both instances.