People v. Quinto
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Eleno Quinto was charged with violation of Article 168 of the Revised Penal Code for allegedly possessing and intending to use a false twenty-peso bank note. The incident occurred on July 13, 1932, in Balatoc, Benguet. The accused was seen holding the counterfeit bill and intended to use it for a dice game. When Jose Rivera examined the bill under a light, Quinto snatched it and tore it to pieces. Quinto later admitted in a written statement that the bill was counterfeit and that he was trying to pass it for his cousin. Procedural History: The accused initially pleaded not guilty, then withdrew the plea and entered a plea of guilty. However, upon seeing the severity of the penalty, the defense withdrew the guilty plea and reverted to not guilty. The defense moved for dismissal, alleging that the justice of the peace failed to conduct a proper preliminary examination as required by law. This motion was denied. The trial court found the defendant guilty and sentenced him. The case was appealed to the Supreme Court. The Petition: The appellant argued that the lower court erred in denying the motion to dismiss and in not declaring the proceedings null and void ab initio due to the alleged failure of the justice of the peace to conduct a proper preliminary examination. The appellant also argued that the lower court erred in not acquitting the accused.
Issue(s)
Whether the alleged failure of the Justice of the Peace to conduct a proper preliminary examination as required by Section 13 of General Orders No. 58 renders the entire proceedings null and void. Whether the evidence of record is sufficient to sustain a conviction for illegal possession and use of a counterfeit bank note under Article 168 of the Revised Penal Code (RPC). Whether the court has the discretion to impose a fine lower than the correctional range when the Revised Penal Code (RPC) provides only a maximum amount and no minimum.
Ruling
The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the trial court with modifications to the penalty. The accused was found guilty of illegal possession and use of a counterfeit bank note and sentenced to an indeterminate sentence and a fine.
Ratio Decidendi
On Issue 1: The Court held that the record affirmatively showed the Justice of the Peace (JP) conducted an investigation before issuing the warrant of arrest. Unlike in People v. Red (55 Phil. 706), where the record was silent, here the JP specifically noted in the order that an investigation was held and reasonable ground was found. More importantly, the Court ruled that Quinto waived any right to complain about procedural defects. By waiving the preliminary investigation at the JP stage, posting bail, entering a plea of not guilty at the Court of First Instance (CFI), and waiting until after the first prosecution witness had already testified to raise the objection, Quinto was estopped from challenging the regularity of the preliminary examination. Procedural requirements for preliminary examinations are for the benefit of the accused and do not affect the jurisdiction of the trial court if the accused proceeds without timely objection. On Issue 2: The evidence of guilt was found to be beyond reasonable doubt. The Court emphasized that Quinto's own written confession, which he wrote with his own hand and in his own words, admitted the bill was counterfeit. This confession, coupled with the testimonies of Jose Rivera and Sixto Soriano, left no room for doubt. The Court dismissed the defense's theory that the bill was won from an 'Igorrot' as unsupported by credible evidence. The act of tearing the bill when it was scrutinized under light was a clear indication of Quinto's knowledge of the bill's falsity and his intent to suppress evidence. On Issue 3: The Court clarified that when the Revised Penal Code (RPC) fixes only a maximum fine and no minimum (as seen in Article 166, which Article 168 references), the determination of the specific fine is left to the sound discretion of the court. The Court noted that the Legislature specifically provided minimums in some articles but not others. Consequently, the Court had the authority to impose a fine of P50.00, even if Article 26 generally classifies fines between P200 and P6,000 as 'correctional'. The Court reasoned that Article 75, which deals with increasing or reducing fines by degrees, applies to the maximum amount, but the absence of a statutory minimum in the specific penal provision means the court is not bound by a floor amount, provided the maximum is not exceeded.
Main Doctrine
The waiver of preliminary investigation and the subsequent participation in the proceedings in the Court of First Instance, including pleading not guilty and presenting evidence, constitute a waiver of any alleged defect in the preliminary examination conducted by the justice of the peace. Furthermore, the penalty for illegal possession and use of a counterfeit bank note under Article 168 of the Revised Penal Code is the penalty next lower in degree to that provided for falsification under Article 166, and the determination of the fine within the maximum authorized is left to the sound discretion of the court when no minimum is fixed.