People v. Tamarra
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: The defendant, Filemon Tamarra, was arrested and charged with the crime of running a lottery. Upon arraignment, he pleaded not guilty to that charge but asserted guilt for possessing lottery tickets with the intent to sell them. Procedural History: The court ordered the information to be amended to charge the crime of having possession of lottery tickets with intent to sell. The accused did not object to this amendment. Upon the presentation of the new information and after arraignment formalities, the accused pleaded guilty and was sentenced by the court. The Petition: The defendant appealed the judgment of conviction, assigning errors relating to the penalty imposed and the question of double jeopardy.
Issue(s)
Whether the penalty imposed was too severe. Whether the issue of double jeopardy was properly presented for consideration.
Ruling
The Court modified the penalty imposed, sentencing the defendant to pay a fine of P100, with subsidiary imprisonment in case of non-payment. The Court found no question presented for consideration regarding double jeopardy under the facts of the appeal.
Ratio Decidendi
On the severity of the penalty: The Court was of the opinion that the penalty imposed was too severe. Consequently, it was modified. The defendant was sentenced to pay a fine of P100. In the event of non-payment of the fine, the defendant would be subject to subsidiary imprisonment as provided by law. This modification reflects the Court's discretion in adjusting penalties deemed excessive for the offense committed. On the issue of double jeopardy: The Court found that no question of double jeopardy was presented for its consideration under the facts of the appeal. The accused was initially charged with running a lottery, but he himself admitted guilt to the lesser offense of possessing lottery tickets with intent to sell. The information was amended without objection, and he pleaded guilty to the amended charge. This procedural sequence, initiated by the accused's own assertion and subsequent plea, did not raise a valid double jeopardy claim before the appellate court.
Main Doctrine
The penalty imposed for possession of lottery tickets with intent to sell was found to be too severe and was modified.