People v. Capalungan
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Appellant Concepcion Capalungan was prosecuted for theft in the justice of the peace court of Laoag, Ilocos Norte. She pleaded guilty and was sentenced to one month and fifteen days of arresto menor. The judgment was rendered on November 20, 1933, and she was committed to the provincial jail on the same date. Procedural History: On December 4, 1933, appellant appealed to the Court of First Instance of Ilocos Norte and was released on bail. In the Court of First Instance, she again pleaded guilty and was sentenced to pay a fine of twenty pesos with subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency. The Petition: Appellant filed a motion in the court below seeking to have the time she spent in the provincial jail from November 20 to December 4, 1933, credited against the subsidiary imprisonment imposed. The motion was denied, leading to this appeal.
Issue(s)
Whether the time spent in jail from November 20 to December 4, 1933, should be credited as preventive imprisonment against the subsidiary imprisonment imposed by the Court of First Instance. Whether Article 29 of the Revised Penal Code is applicable to the appellant's situation.
Ruling
The order denying the motion to credit the time spent in jail as preventive imprisonment is affirmed.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of crediting time spent in jail: The Court held that Article 29 of the Revised Penal Code, which governs the credit for preventive imprisonment, is not applicable. The appellant was not under preventive imprisonment as contemplated by the article because she had already been convicted and sentenced by the justice of the peace court. Furthermore, the offense of theft, of which she was convicted, does not entitle her to the benefits granted under Article 29 in any case. The appellant's claim that the time spent in jail should be credited is therefore without merit. On the applicability of Article 30 of the old Penal Code: The appellant invoked the last paragraph of Article 30 of the old Penal Code, which dealt with the counting of penalties when a sentence is reduced on appeal. However, the Court clarified that the Revised Penal Code is a complete revision of the old Penal Code. When a statute is revised, provisions omitted from the revised act are deemed repealed. Article 367 of the Revised Penal Code expressly repeals the old Penal Code. Therefore, the omission of the last paragraph of Article 30 of the old Penal Code from the Revised Penal Code means that the rule it contained is no longer in effect. The Court also cited authorities on statutory construction, emphasizing that repeal by implication is not favored, but in cases of complete revision, omitted provisions are considered repealed. The Court distinguished this case from situations where an amendatory code is silent on a point covered by the original code, stating that here, the new code is a revision and explicitly repeals the old one. Consequently, the appellant's contention based on the old Penal Code provision is untenable.
Main Doctrine
The omission of a provision from the old Penal Code in the Revised Penal Code, which is a complete revision, results in the repeal of the omitted provision. Therefore, time spent in jail prior to conviction cannot be credited as preventive imprisonment if not expressly provided for in the Revised Penal Code.