Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • Ramos V Gonong

    Uploaded by

    Fox Macalino
    45 views1 page
    The Supreme Court ruled that Judge Gonong did not err in denying the prosecution's motion for reconsideration to add a subsidiary imprisonment penalty to a judgment. The judgment convicted Antonio Ramos of multiple slight physical injuries and sentenced him to pay a fine without subsidiary imprisonment. Ramos withdrew his appeal, making the judgment final. The Court held that an accused cannot be subjected to subsidiary imprisonment for failing to pay a fine if the original judgment did not include subsidiary imprisonment.

    Original Description:

    Case digest

    Original Title

    Ramos v Gonong

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    The Supreme Court ruled that Judge Gonong did not err in denying the prosecution's motion for reconsideration to add a subsidiary imprisonment penalty to a judgment. The judgment convicted Antonio Ramos of multiple slight physical injuries and sentenced him to pay a fine without subsidiary imprisonment. Ramos withdrew his appeal, making the judgment final. The Court held that an accused cannot be subjected to subsidiary imprisonment for failing to pay a fine if the original judgment did not include subsidiary imprisonment.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    45 views1 page

    Ramos V Gonong

    Uploaded by

    Fox Macalino
    The Supreme Court ruled that Judge Gonong did not err in denying the prosecution's motion for reconsideration to add a subsidiary imprisonment penalty to a judgment. The judgment convicted Antonio Ramos of multiple slight physical injuries and sentenced him to pay a fine without subsidiary imprisonment. Ramos withdrew his appeal, making the judgment final. The Court held that an accused cannot be subjected to subsidiary imprisonment for failing to pay a fine if the original judgment did not include subsidiary imprisonment.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    of 1

    Ramos v Gonong

    GR No. L-42010
    August 31 1976
    Antonio, J.:

    Facts: On October 20 1935, a judgment of conviction was promulgated against the accused,
    Oledon Ramos, for Multiple Slight Physical Injuries sentencing him to pay a fine WITHOUT any
    indication of a subsidiary imprisonment. The accused filed a motion to appeal but eventually
    withdrew the same. Two days after withdrawal, the prosecution filed a motion for
    reconsideration to amend the judgment to include a subsidiary imprisonment. The motion was
    denied by respondent, Hon. Gonong.

    Issue: Did Hon. Gonong err in denying the motion for reconsideration to add a subsidiary
    penalty?

    Ruling: No, Hon. Gonong did not err in denying the motion for reconsideration to add a
    subsidiary penalty.

    The Judgment by Hon. Gonong became final after the accused withdrew his motion to appeal.
    Subsidiary penalty; Non-payment by accused of fine cannot subject said accused to subsidiary
    imprisonment where such subsidiary imprisonment not imposed in judgment of conviction.—An
    accused cannot be made to undergo subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency to pay the
    fine imposed upon him when the subsidiary imprisonment is not imposed in the judgment of
    conviction.

    You might also like