Scribd
Upload
3K views1 page

1 People v. Santiago, 43 Phil 124 (1922)

Gregorio Santiago appealed the decision of the trial court finding him guilty of homicide by reckless imprudence for running over and killing a 7-year old boy with his car. He argued that Act No. 2886, under which he was charged, was unconstitutional and therefore the trial court lacked jurisdiction. The Supreme Court affirmed the sentence, ruling that Act No. 2886 was constitutional as it did not violate any constitutional provisions and merely established criminal procedures. Santiago was sentenced to one year and one day in prison, accessory penalties, and was ordered to pay 1000 pesos to the deceased's heirs and court costs.

Uploaded by

Princess Marie
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
3K views1 page

1 People v. Santiago, 43 Phil 124 (1922)

Gregorio Santiago appealed the decision of the trial court finding him guilty of homicide by reckless imprudence for running over and killing a 7-year old boy with his car. He argued that Act No. 2886, under which he was charged, was unconstitutional and therefore the trial court lacked jurisdiction. The Supreme Court affirmed the sentence, ruling that Act No. 2886 was constitutional as it did not violate any constitutional provisions and merely established criminal procedures. Santiago was sentenced to one year and one day in prison, accessory penalties, and was ordered to pay 1000 pesos to the deceased's heirs and court costs.

Uploaded by

Princess Marie
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 1

The People of the Philippine Islands, plaintiff-appellee Vs.

Gregorio Santiago,
defendant-appellant
GR NO. 17584, March 9, 1922

Nature of the Action: Appeal from the decision of the trial court

Facts: Defendant was driving his car when he ran over Porfiro Parondo, a 7-year-
old boy, which instantly caused the latter’s death. He was then found guilty of
homicide with reckless imprudence, was sentenced to suffer one year and one day
or prision correccional, as well as to pay the costs of the trial. However, defendant
contended that Act No. 2886 is unconstitutional, and therefore, the trial court did
not have jurisdiction over his person and the complaint itself.

Issue: Whether or not Act No. 2886, under which the complaint in the present case
was filed, is valid and constitutional.

Ruling: The sentence appealed from is hereby affirmed, the appellant being


furthermore sentenced to the accessory penalties prescribed in article 61 of the
Penal Code, and to indemnify the heirs of the deceased in the sum of P1,000 and to
the payment of the costs of both instances.

Yes. Act No. 2996 is not violative of any constitutional provision, nor does it
partake of the same character as that of the provisions of the constitution; thus, the
court did not commit any of the errors assigned. Furthermore, its main purpose is
limited to criminal procedure inasmuch as its intention is to give to its provisions
the effect of law in criminal matters.

You might also like