41 PEOPLE V GARCIA MBL

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v EUGENIO GARCIA Y MADRIGAL

G.R. No. L -2873|February 28, 1950|En Banc|TUASON|Strict construction against the State and liberally in favor of the
accused
DOCTRINE: "Criminal and penal statutes must be strictly construed, that is, they cannot be enlarged or extended
by intendment, implication, or by any equitable considerations. They must come clearly within both the spirit and
the letter of the statute, and where there is any reasonable doubt, it must be resolved in favor of the person accused of
violating the statute; that is, all questions in doubt will be resolved in favor of those from whom the penalty is sought."

CASE SUMMARY: Accused was arrested and convicted of robbery at age 17. Because of the passage of RA No. 4 which
amended article 80 of the RPC which lowered the age that a minor may be given to an institution instead of being imprisoned
from 18 to 16 the SolGen argued that it had also impliedly amended Art. 68 of the RPC which states a person 15 to 18 years of
age will be sentenced to the penalty next lower than that prescribed. The court found that there was no implied amendment but
since penal laws must be strictly construed the proper penalty for the defendant is the next lower penalty.
FACTS:
• Defendant was convicted of the crime of robbery when he was 17 years old and was sentenced to 4yrs and 2 months and
1 day of prision correccional to 8 years of prision mayor and to pay the sum of P85 as indemnity.
• Republic Act No. 4 was enacted thus amending Article 80 of the RPC and reducing from 18 yo 16 yo and bellow the age
which accused has to be to be committed to the custody or care of a public or private, benevolent or charitable institution
instead of being sent to prison after conviction.
• The Solicitor General now raises the argument that such law has impliedly amended as well par 2 of Art 68 of the RPC
which states that when the offender is over fifteen and under eighteen years age, "The penalty next lower than that
prescribed by law shall be imposed, but always in the proper period."

RULING: W/N RA No. 4 impliedly amended par. 2 art. 68 of the RPC? NO.
• all parts of a statute are to be harmonized and reconciled so that effect may be given to each and every part thereof, and
that conflicting intention in the same statute are never to be supposed or so regarded, unless forced upon the court by an
unambiguous language.
• This applies to amendments as well so that when read together it would be as if the old act had been repealed and a ne
one passed in its stead. It would be as if the amended portion had always been part of the statute.
• Where an amendment leaves certain portions of the original act unchanged, such portions are continued in force, with the
same meaning and effect they had before the amendment. So where an amendatory act provides that an existing statute
shall be amended to read as recited in the amendatory act, such portions of the existing law as are retained, either literally
or substantially, are regarded as a continuation of the existing law, and not as a new enactment."
• That being said there is no irreconcilable conflict between granting an accused of 15 to 18 y.o. a privileged mitigating
circumstance and fixing at 16 the maximum age of persons who are to be placed in a reformatory institution.
• The privilege in art. 68 is not inherent in age but is purely statutory and conventional. There is also no clear intention in
congress to amend it and if they had they would have done so explicitly.
• Criminal and penal statutes must be strictly construed, that is, they cannot be enlarged or extended by intendment,
implication, or by any equitable considerations. In other words, the language cannot be enlarged beyond the ordinary
meaning of its terms in order to carry into effect the general purpose for which the statute was enacted.
• Only those persons, offenses, and penalties, clearly included, beyond any reasonable doubt, will be considered within the
statute's operation.
• They must come clearly within both the spirit and the letter of the statute, and where there is any reasonable doubt, it
must be resolved in favor of the person accused of violating the statute; that is, all questions in doubt will be resolved in
favor of those from whom the penalty is sought.

DISPOSITION: There being no modifying circumstance, the appropriate penalty in the present case is from 6 months and 1
day of arresto mayor to 2 years and 4 months of prision correccional. Being entitled to an indeterminate penalty as provided in
section 1 of Act No. L-4103 as amended, the accused should be, and he is hereby sentenced to imprisonment of not less than
4 months of arresto mayor and not more than 2 years and 4 months of prision correccional. In all other respect the appealed
judgment is affirmed. The appellant will pay the costs of this appeal.

NOTES: guilty of the crime under art 295 case 5 punished by prision correccional max to prision mayor medium.