People v. Canson
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: In eleven separate informations filed on November 27, 1954, John Canson, Jr., et al. were charged with violation of Article 195 of the Revised Penal Code for allegedly taking part in the exploitation or use of slot machines (jackpots) as maintainer and operator, and permitting their operation in their place of business, on or about July 28, 1954, and for some time prior thereto. Procedural History: Counsel for the accused filed motions to quash each case on the ground of prescription. The Justice of the Peace Courts dismissed all cases. The Provincial Fiscal appealed to the Court of First Instance of Rizal, which affirmed the dismissal orders. The prosecution appealed to the Supreme Court. The Petition: The prosecution appealed the order of dismissal, contending that the offense charged prescribes in ten years, not two months, as ruled by the lower court.
Issue(s)
Whether the offense charged, a violation of Article 195 of the Revised Penal Code, has prescribed. Whether a fine of P200.00, imposable as a single or alternative penalty under Article 195, should be considered a correctional penalty for purposes of prescription under Article 90 of the Revised Penal Code.
Ruling
The Supreme Court affirmed the order of dismissal, holding that the offense charged has prescribed. The Court reiterated its ruling that a violation of Article 195 of the Revised Penal Code is a light felony and prescribes in two months.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of prescription: The Court held that the offense charged, a violation of Article 195 of the Revised Penal Code, is a light felony. This classification is based on Article 9 of the Revised Penal Code, which defines light felonies as those punishable by arresto menor or a fine not exceeding P200.00. Consequently, Article 90, paragraph 6, of the same Code dictates that light offenses prescribe in two months. The Court explicitly cited its previous rulings in People of the Philippines vs. Yu Hai and The People of the Philippines vs. Pedro Aquino, et al., which established this doctrine for violations of Article 195. On the classification of the penalty: The prosecution contended that a fine of P200.00, imposable under Article 195, should be considered a correctional penalty under Article 26 of the Revised Penal Code, thereby making the prescriptive period ten years as per Article 90. However, the Court found this argument unmeritorious in light of its established classification of the offense as a light felony. The Court acknowledged the apparent conflict between Articles 9 and 26 but maintained its consistent interpretation regarding the prescriptive period for violations of Article 195. The Court emphasized that the policy of the government is to curb gambling, and the short prescriptive period for such offenses, as interpreted, leads to the dismissal of cases due to the late filing of informations, as occurred in this instance with eleven separate violations.
Main Doctrine
A violation of Article 195 of the Revised Penal Code, punishable with arresto menor or a fine not exceeding P200.00, is a light felony and prescribes in two months, as per Article 90, paragraph 6, of the Revised Penal Code.