Dalao v. Geronimo
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Petitioner Alfredo Dalao y Panilo was charged with attempted bribery. The charge alleged that on or about June 9, 1950, in Manila, Dalao offered two one-peso bills to Patrolman F. Jaymalin, inserted within his driver's license, in exchange for not being arrested for disregarding a traffic sign. The patrolman refused the bribe and arrested Dalao. Procedural History: The case originated in the Municipal Court of Manila, where Dalao was charged with attempted bribery on June 14, 1952. When ordered to plead, Dalao moved to quash the information, arguing that the crime had prescribed. The respondent judge denied this motion, stating that the penalty for attempted bribery was destierro (banishment) in its minimum and medium periods, making the prescription period five years. The Petition: Petitioner Dalao seeks a writ of certiorari and prohibition, contending that the Municipal Court's denial of his motion to quash was erroneous. He argues that the penalty for attempted bribery is arresto menor (arrest) in its minimum and medium periods, which would mean the offense prescribes in two months. Since more than two years had passed between the alleged commission of the offense and the filing of the charge, Dalao asserts the action had prescribed.
Issue(s)
Whether the penalty imposable for attempted bribery is destierro or arresto menor. Whether the criminal action for attempted bribery had prescribed at the time the information was filed.
Ruling
The petition for certiorari and prohibition is denied. The order of the respondent judge denying the motion to quash is sustained.
Ratio Decidendi
On Issue 1: The Supreme Court (SC) held that the penalty imposable for attempted bribery is destierro in its minimum and medium periods. The Court explicitly rejected the petitioner's contention that the penalty should be arresto menor. This ruling is a reaffirmation of the doctrine established in Uy Chin Hua vs. Hon. Judge Rafael Dinglasan and People vs. Emilio Santos y Bautista. The classification of the penalty is determined by the Revised Penal Code (RPC) as interpreted by the Court's precedents. Consequently, the legal characterization of attempted bribery remains tied to destierro. On Issue 2: Because the penalty is destierro, the prescriptive period is ten years. Under Article 25 of the RPC, destierro is categorized as a correctional penalty. Article 90 of the RPC provides that crimes punishable by a correctional penalty prescribe in ten years. Although the respondent judge mentioned a five-year period, the SC clarified that for correctional penalties like destierro, the period is ten years. Given that the offense occurred on June 9, 1950, and the information was filed on June 14, 1952, only two years had passed. Therefore, the action was filed well within the ten-year prescriptive period provided by law.
Main Doctrine
The period of prescription for attempted bribery, when penalized with destierro, is ten (10) years, as destierro is a correctional penalty under Article 25 of the Revised Penal Code. The contention that attempted bribery is penalized with arresto menor in its minimum and medium periods, leading to a prescription period of two months, is untenable.