Home Law Firm Law Library Laws Jurisprudence

August 1906 - Philippine Supreme Court Decisions/Resolutions

Philippine Supreme Court

Jurisprudence
Search

Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1906 > August 1906 Decisions > G.R.
No. 2785 August 23, 1906 - UNITED STATES v. JOSE CATAJAY
ChanRobles Professional
Review, Inc. 006 Phil 398:

FIRST DIVISION

ChanRobles On-Line Bar [G.R. No. 2785. August 23, 1906. ]

Review

THE UNITED STATES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. JOSE CATAJAY, Defendant-

Appellant.

G. E. Campbell, for Appellant.

Solicitor-General Araneta, for Appellee.

SYLLABUS

1. PUBLIC SANDAL. — Article 441 of the Penal Code construed. Held, That it is an
essential element of the crime defined and penalized therein that the acts complained
of resulted in a grave public scandal.

ChanRobles CPA Review Online

DECISION

CARSON, J. :

The trial court found be accused guilty of the crime of public scandal in violation of the
provisions of article 441 of Penal Code.

It appears, however, that the acts complained of were committed at night, in a private
house, and at a time when no one was present except the accused, the mistress of the
house, and one servant, and we are of opinion that these circumstances do not
constitute that degree of publicity which is an essential element of the crime defined
and penalized in article 441 of the Penal Code. (Decision of the supreme court of Spain,
 ChanRobles Special Lecture
Series
SPONSORED SEARCHES
digested cases about grave scandal
usv catajay
=nd court cases by name
people vs catajay case digest
gr no 2785 case digest
SPONSORED SEARCHES
digested cases about grave scandal
=nd court cases by name
people vs catajay case digest
gr no 2785 case digest
supreme court decisions
SPONSORED SEARCHES
digested cases about grave scandal
=nd court cases by name
people vs catajay case digest
gr no 2785 case digest
supreme court decisions
August-1906 Jurisprudence
G.R. No. L-2664 August 1, 1906
- UNITED STATES v. CELESTINA
CAÑETA
006 Phil 342
G.R. No. L-3007 August 3, 1906
- ROMAN CATHOLIC APOSTOLIC
CHURCH v. MUNICIPALITY
BADOC
006 Phil 345
G.R. No. 2415 August 7, 1906 -
UNITED STATES v. JAMES
WALSH
006 Phil 349
G.R. No. 2688 August 7, 1906 -
UNITED STATES v. MARCIANO
ORUGA
April 13, 1885.)
The correct construction of this article well stated by Viada in his commentary on article
457 of the Penal Code of Spain, which exactly corresponds with the article in question.
"Constituyen el delito acqui previsto todos aquellos actos contrarios al pudor y a las
buenas costumbres que, por su publicidad, han podido ser objeto de escandalo publico
para las personas que accidentalmente los han presenciado. Aunque no lo diga el
articulo, es evidente que es condicion precisa para que exista este delito que la ofensa
al pudor y a las buenas costumbre sea publica: si la ofensa no tuviese este caracter, es
claro que ya no habria de producir el grave escandalo ni la transcendencia que requiere
el articulo, y por lo tanto, ya no quedaria sujeta a la sancion del mismo, sino a la mas
benigna del No. 2 del articulo 586, que castiga como reos de una simple falta contra el
orden publicio, con la pena de arresto de uno a diez dias y multa de 5 a 50 pesetas, a
los que con cualquier clase de actos ofendieren la moral y las buenas costumbre sin
cometer delito. Cuando el hecho, pues, ofensivo al pudor se cometa publicamente,
debera apreciarse como delito, puesto que esta misma publicidad es la que produce el
grave escandalo que en el se castiga: en otro caso, la disposicion citada del articulo
586 es la que debera aplicarse." (Viada comentarios al Codigo Penal de 1870, cuarta
edicion, tomo 3, pag. 130.)
There can be no doubt that the accused committed the offense defined and penalized in
No. 2 of the article 571 of the Penal Code, which corresponds with the above-
mentioned number 2 of article 586 of the Penal Code of Spain, and provides that a
penalty of from one of ten days’ arrest and a fine of from 15 to 125 pesetas shall be
imposed upon —
"2. Those who, by exhibiting prints or engravings, or by means of other acts, shall
offend against good morals and custom without committing a crime."
cralaw virtua1aw library
Since this is a lesser offense that the one charged in the complaint, and is included
therein, we find him guilt of a violation of the provisions of the said article and,
reversing the sentence of the trial court, we impose upon the accused, Jose Catajay,
the penalty of the ten days’ imprisonment (arresto), and the payment of a fine of 125
pesetas, and the costs of the trial in both instances. After the expiration of ten days
from the date of final judgment let the cause be remanded to the lower court for proper
procedure. So ordered.
Arellano, C.J., Mapa, Willard, and Tracey, JJ., concur.
Separate Opinions
TORRES, J., dissenting:
chanrob1es virtual 1aw library
Granting that the facts of the case have been proved and not being possible to convict
the accused of the crime of attempted rape, or at least of that of "abusos deshonestos,"
as defined in article 439 of the Penal Code, owing to the improper qualification set forth
in the complaint, in the judgment of the undersigned, and taking into consideration the
fact that the act offended against good morals and customs, public and private, and not
only the companion of the injured party in the house but also her neighbors were
informed and had notice of the act, because the attempt was publicity made, therefore,
I am of opinion that the judgment appealed from should be affirmed, with the costs
against the accused.
Back to Home | Back to Main
OF
W.