People v. Delfin
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: On April 19, 1903, Ricardo Delfin, a corporal in the Philippine Constabulary, while on guard duty at San Lazaro Hospital, absented himself from his post. Upon returning around noon, he collected revolvers and ammunition from two privates, Loriano de la Rosa and Eugenio Patrimonio, on the pretext of a directive from his captain to gather arms. He failed to secure the firearm of another private, Alberto Dimalanta. Delfin then left the premises and did not return to his post or the barracks. Procedural History: The three soldiers reported the incident to their superiors, leading to an investigation that confirmed Delfin's desertion and the taking of government arms. In August of the same year, Delfin was arrested in Calumpit, Bulacan, by another corporal, Prudencio Bustos, while attempting to board a train to Dagupan. He surrendered upon being confronted with a revolver. The defendant pleaded not guilty to the charge of desertion. The Appeal: The defendant appealed his conviction for desertion. His defense alleged that he was kidnapped by brigands and escaped after five months. The prosecution presented evidence of his desertion, including his unauthorized absence, intent not to return, taking of government property, and his arrest six months later while attempting to flee.
Issue(s)
Whether Ricardo Delfin is guilty of desertion under Act No. 619. Whether the provisions of the Penal Code regarding subsidiary imprisonment and credit for detention time apply to offenses punished under Act No. 619.
Ruling
The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the lower court, finding Ricardo Delfin guilty of desertion. He was sentenced to two years of imprisonment at hard labor, to pay the costs, and a fine of two thousand pesos, Philippine currency, without subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency, and without credit for the time he was held in detention.
Ratio Decidendi
On Issue 1: The Court found the evidence manifest and proved beyond reasonable doubt that Ricardo Delfin committed desertion. It was established that he was a duly enlisted member of the Constabulary, received pay, absented himself without leave with the intent not to return, and took with him the revolvers and ammunition of his subordinates. His defense of being kidnapped by brigands was deemed highly improbable and unsubstantiated by any evidence, especially considering the circumstances and the fact that he was apprehended attempting to flee the country six months later. The Court cited Section 7 of Act No. 619, which defines desertion and prescribes penalties for such acts. On Issue 2: The Court ruled that the provisions of the Penal Code and the provisional law relating to subsidiary imprisonment and the crediting of time in detention have no application to crimes punished under special acts of the Commission, such as Act No. 619. The Court explained that Act No. 619 is based on principles and a system of legislation entirely different from those of the Penal Code. Therefore, the defendant is not entitled to subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency nor to credit for the time he was held in detention, as these benefits are not provided for in the special law governing his offense.
Main Doctrine
A member of the Constabulary who absents himself without leave with the intent not to return, and who takes government arms and ammunition, is guilty of desertion under Act No. 619. The penalties and procedural rules prescribed by this special act, including the exclusion of subsidiary imprisonment and credit for detention time, shall govern, overriding general provisions of the Penal Code.