Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 480 views

    People of The Philippines Vs Yu Hai

    Uploaded by

    Clifford Parish
    Yu Hai was caught engaging in illegal gambling on June 26, 1954 and punished under Article 195 of the Revised Penal Code. An information was filed against him on October 22, 1954. Yu Hai argued the offense was light and already prescribed. The judge agreed. The Solicitor General argued illegal gambling carried a maximum fine of ₱200, making it correctional with a 10-year prescription under Articles 26 and 90. However, the Supreme Court held that Article 9 defines light offenses as those punishable by arresto menor or a fine not exceeding ₱200, with a 2-month prescription. Interpreting Articles 26 and 90 to impose a 10-year prescription for such light offenses would contradict Article

    Copyright:

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

    People of The Philippines Vs Yu Hai

    Uploaded by

    Clifford Parish
    480 views2 pages
    Yu Hai was caught engaging in illegal gambling on June 26, 1954 and punished under Article 195 of the Revised Penal Code. An information was filed against him on October 22, 1954. Yu Hai argued the offense was light and already prescribed. The judge agreed. The Solicitor General argued illegal gambling carried a maximum fine of ₱200, making it correctional with a 10-year prescription under Articles 26 and 90. However, the Supreme Court held that Article 9 defines light offenses as those punishable by arresto menor or a fine not exceeding ₱200, with a 2-month prescription. Interpreting Articles 26 and 90 to impose a 10-year prescription for such light offenses would contradict Article

    Original Title

    People of the Philippines vs Yu Hai.docx

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Yu Hai was caught engaging in illegal gambling on June 26, 1954 and punished under Article 195 of the Revised Penal Code. An information was filed against him on October 22, 1954. Yu Hai argued the offense was light and already prescribed. The judge agreed. The Solicitor General argued illegal gambling carried a maximum fine of ₱200, making it correctional with a 10-year prescription under Articles 26 and 90. However, the Supreme Court held that Article 9 defines light offenses as those punishable by arresto menor or a fine not exceeding ₱200, with a 2-month prescription. Interpreting Articles 26 and 90 to impose a 10-year prescription for such light offenses would contradict Article

    Copyright:

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

    People of The Philippines Vs Yu Hai

    Uploaded by

    Clifford Parish
    Yu Hai was caught engaging in illegal gambling on June 26, 1954 and punished under Article 195 of the Revised Penal Code. An information was filed against him on October 22, 1954. Yu Hai argued the offense was light and already prescribed. The judge agreed. The Solicitor General argued illegal gambling carried a maximum fine of ₱200, making it correctional with a 10-year prescription under Articles 26 and 90. However, the Supreme Court held that Article 9 defines light offenses as those punishable by arresto menor or a fine not exceeding ₱200, with a 2-month prescription. Interpreting Articles 26 and 90 to impose a 10-year prescription for such light offenses would contradict Article

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    You are on page 1of 2

    People of the Philippines vs Yu Hai

    On 26 June 1954, a certain Yu Hai was caught engaging in illegal gambling


    operation then punished under Article 195 of the Revised Penal Code (Now,
    illegal gambling is defined and punished by P.D 1602, as amended). On 22
    October 1954, an information was filed against him for said illegal act with the
    Justice of the Peace Court (Municipal Trial Court) of Caloocan. Yu Hai moved
    for the quashal of the information on the ground that the offense, being a light
    offense, already prescribed at the time of the filing of the information. The
    judge granted the motion to quash.
    The Solicitor General, in questioning the decision of the judge, argued that
    illegal gambling under Article 195 of the RPC may be imposed a maximum fine
    of Php200.00. And under Article 26 of the RPC, a fine of Php200.00 but not
    exceeding Php600.00 is considered a correctional penalty. Further, Article 90 of
    the RPC provides that offenses punishable by correctional penalties prescribed
    in ten (10) years, hence, the charge against Yu Hai did not prescribe on 22
    October 1954.
    ISSUE: Whether or not the Solicitor General is correct.
    HELD: No. It is true that there seem to be a conflict between the provisions of
    Articles 9 and 26 of the Revised Penal Code. These Articles provide:
    ART. 9. Grave felonies, less grave felonies, and light felonies. — x x x
    Less grave felonies are those which the law punishes with penalties which in
    their period are correctional, in accordance with the above mentioned article.
    Light felonies are those infraction of law for the commission of which the
    penalty of arresto mayor or a fine not exceeding 200 pesos or both, is
    provided.
    xxx
    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.
    Meanwhile, Article 90 reads:
    ART. 90. Prescription of crimes. — x x x
    Those punishable by a correctional penalty shall prescribe in ten years;
    with the exception of those punishable by arresto mayor, which shall prescribe
    in six months.
    The crime of libel or other similar offenses prescribe in two years. The offense of
    oral defamation and slander by deed shall prescribe in six months.
    Light offense prescribe in two months.
    The term light offense is defined by Article 9 of the RPC. It is controlling over
    Articles 26 and 90. Congress, in writing Article 26 and 90, could not have
    intended to provide two prescriptive periods for light offenses, to wit: (1) will
    prescribe in two months if punishable by arresto menor and/or fine not
    exceeding Php200.00, and (2) will expire in ten years if punishable by not more
    than Php6,000.00 but not less than Php200.00. This would render the
    difference of one peso to be the ultimate determinant whether or not a light
    offense prescribes in ten years or two months. These absurd results the
    lawmakers could not have wittingly intended, especially since more serious
    offenses as those punishable by arresto mayor (a correctional penalty)
    prescribe, also under Article 90, in five years, while other “less grave” offense
    like libel, and oral defamation and slander, prescribe in even shorter periods of
    times, two years and six months respectively. There is no reason to suppose
    that the law-maker would raise the prescriptive period for certain light offenses
    over other light offenses.
    Further, the interpretation more favorable to the accused should be adopted. In
    this case, it is more favorable for the accused for the SC to rule that indeed,
    crimes punished by a maximum of Php200.00 are considered light offenses the
    prescriptive period of which is two months.

    You might also like