Nothing Special   »   [go: up one dir, main page]
Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 402 views

    People VS Tumlos

    Uploaded by

    DaveKarlRamada-Maraon
    1) The defendant Ireneo Tumlos appealed his conviction for theft of large cattle belonging to Maximiano Sobrevega and Ambrosio Pecasis. He took 13 cows from the same place without the owners' consent. 2) The defendant was previously convicted and sentenced for theft of 8 cows belonging to Sobrevega. He is now charged with theft of the remaining 5 cows belonging to Pecasis from the same incident. 3) The court ruled that convicting the defendant for the theft of the 5 additional cows would violate the legal principle of double jeopardy, as his intent and criminal act were not divisible, having stolen the cows as part of the same concurrent action.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    People VS Tumlos

    Uploaded by

    DaveKarlRamada-Maraon
    402 views1 page
    1) The defendant Ireneo Tumlos appealed his conviction for theft of large cattle belonging to Maximiano Sobrevega and Ambrosio Pecasis. He took 13 cows from the same place without the owners' consent. 2) The defendant was previously convicted and sentenced for theft of 8 cows belonging to Sobrevega. He is now charged with theft of the remaining 5 cows belonging to Pecasis from the same incident. 3) The court ruled that convicting the defendant for the theft of the 5 additional cows would violate the legal principle of double jeopardy, as his intent and criminal act were not divisible, having stolen the cows as part of the same concurrent action.

    Original Title

    PEOPLE VS TUMLOS

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    1) The defendant Ireneo Tumlos appealed his conviction for theft of large cattle belonging to Maximiano Sobrevega and Ambrosio Pecasis. He took 13 cows from the same place without the owners' consent. 2) The defendant was previously convicted and sentenced for theft of 8 cows belonging to Sobrevega. He is now charged with theft of the remaining 5 cows belonging to Pecasis from the same incident. 3) The court ruled that convicting the defendant for the theft of the 5 additional cows would violate the legal principle of double jeopardy, as his intent and criminal act were not divisible, having stolen the cows as part of the same concurrent action.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    402 views1 page

    People VS Tumlos

    Uploaded by

    DaveKarlRamada-Maraon
    1) The defendant Ireneo Tumlos appealed his conviction for theft of large cattle belonging to Maximiano Sobrevega and Ambrosio Pecasis. He took 13 cows from the same place without the owners' consent. 2) The defendant was previously convicted and sentenced for theft of 8 cows belonging to Sobrevega. He is now charged with theft of the remaining 5 cows belonging to Pecasis from the same incident. 3) The court ruled that convicting the defendant for the theft of the 5 additional cows would violate the legal principle of double jeopardy, as his intent and criminal act were not divisible, having stolen the cows as part of the same concurrent action.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    You are on page 1of 1

    G.R. No.

    46428, April 13, 1939

    People of the Philippines

    Vs

    Ireneo Tumlos

    FACTS:

    This is an appeal made by defendant Irineo Tumlos to the judgment of the


    Court of First Instance of Iloilo for convicting him of the crime of theft of large
    cattle as defined and punished in Article 310 in relation to Article 309 of the RPC.

    On November 21, 1937, eight cows belonging to Maximiano Sobrevega and


    five belonging to Ambrosio Pecasis, were taken by the herein defendant without
    knowledge and consent of the respective owners. The deputy fiscal of Iloilo filed
    on July 11, 1938, an information against the said defendant for the offense of theft
    of the eight cows belonging to Sobrevega, which resulted in his being sentenced,
    on July 15, 1938, to an indeterminate penalty from one year, eight months and
    twenty one days to five years, five months and eleven days of prision correccional.
    In the information filed in the present case, the same defendant is charged with
    theft of the five cows belonging to Pecasis, committed on the same place and date
    of theft of the eight cows of Sobrevega charged in the previous information.

    ISSUE:

    Whether or not the conviction of the accused for the theft of the eight cows
    belonging to Sobrevega constitutes a bar to his conviction for the theft of the five
    cows belonging to Pecasis under the legal procedural principle of double jeopardy.

    RULING:

    The intention of the crimes were likewise one: to take for the purpose of
    appropriating or selling the thirteen cows which he found in the same place. As
    neither the intention nor the criminal act is susceptible of division, the offense
    arising from the concurrence of its two constituent elements cannot be divided.
    Therefore, as the five cows were integral parts of the thirteen cows which were the
    subject matter of theft, and as he had already been tried for and convicted of the
    theft of eight, he cannot now be convicted of the theft of the other five. Otherwise,
    the conviction for the said five cows would be the second, in violation of his
    constitutional right not to be punished twice for the same offense.

    You might also like