Pp v.

Santiago Digest 1922

G.R. No. 17584 March 8, 1922

THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES ISLANDS, plaintiff-
appellee,
vs.
GREGORIO SANTIAGO, defendant-appellant.

Facts of the Case:

The accused, Gregorio Santiago was driving an
automobile at the rate of 30 miles an hour on a highway 6
meter wide, notwithstanding the fact that he had to pass a
narrow space between a wagon standing on one side of the
road and a heap of stones on the other side where there
were two young boys at. One of the boys named, Porforio
Parondo was ran over and killed. Appellant was prosecuted
for the crime of homicide by reckless negligence as a result
and was sentenced to suffer one year and one day
of prision correccional, and to pay the costs of the trial.
These facts are so well established in the records
that there cannot be a shade of doubt about them.
However, the herein appellant contends that the trial
court erred in not taking judicial notice of the fact that the
appellant was being prosecuted in conformity with Act No.
2886 of the Philippine Legislature and that the Act is
unconstitutional and gave no jurisdiction in this case.
Act No. 2886 states, “All prosecutions for public
offenses shall be in the name of the People of the Philippine
Islands against the persons charged with the offense.”,
while in General Order No. 58, “All prosecutions for public
offenses shall be in the name of the United States against
the persons charged with the offenses.”
Issue: Whether or not the General Order No. 58 can be
amended by Act. No. 2886.
Held:
Yes. General Order No. 58 can be amended. It has a
statutory character rather than constitutional character. The
procedure in criminal matters is not incorporated in the
Constitutions of the States, but is left in the hand of the
legislatures, so that it falls within the realm of public
statutory law. Since the provisions of this General Order
have the character of statutory law, the power of the
Legislature to amend it, is self-evident.
The sentence appealed from is affirmed.
 People vs. Santiago
October 25, 2017LEGIStrataLeave a comment

THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES ISLANDS, plaintiff-appellee, vs. GREGORIO

SANTIAGO, defendant-appellant.
G.R. No. 17584 March 8, 1922

Nature of the Action: Appeal from the decision of the trial court

Facts: Defendant was driving his car when he ran over Porfiro Parondo, a 7-year-old boy, which
instantly caused the latter’s death. He was then found guilty of homicide with reckless
imprudence, was sentenced to suffer one year and one day or prision correccional, as well as to
pay the costs of the trial. However, defendant contended that Act No. 2886 is unconstitutional,
and therefore, the trial court did not have jurisdiction over his person and the complaint itself.

Issue: Is Act No. 2886 constitutional?

Ruling: The sentence appealed from is hereby affirmed, the appellant being furthermore
sentenced to the 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.

Ratio Decidendi: Yes. Act No. 2996 is not violative of any constitutional provision, nor does it
partake of the same character as that of the provisions of the constitution; thus, the court did
not commit any of the errors assigned. Furthermore, its main purpose is limited to criminal
procedure inasmuch as its intention is to give to its provisions the effect of law in criminal
matters.