People v Faller

No. 45964 April 25, 1939 Avanceña, C.J.

Plaintiff/Appellee Defendant/Appellant
People of the Philippines Restituto Faller
RECIT-READY:

NATURE OF THE CASE:

 Restituto Faller was charged of a crime of damage caused to another’s
property maliciously and willfully and the court of first instance of Rizal.
 The court of first instance of Rizal sentenced him to pay a fine of 38 pesos
and to indemnify Ramon Diokno with the same amount, with subsidiary
imprisonment in case of insolvency.
 An appeal was brought to the Supreme Court
FACTS OF THE CASE:
Restituto Faller was charged with the crime of damage caused to Ramon Diokno’s
property maliciously and willfully. The court of first instance of Rizal found that the
damage was not caused maliciously and willfully, but through reckless imprudence.
So he was sentenced to pay a fine of 38 pesos and to indemnify the offended party
(Ramon Diokno) in the same amount, with subsidiary imprisonment in case of
insolvency.

Faller argued that he was sentenced for a crime he was not charged, claiming that
a crime maliciously and willfully committed is different from that committed through
reckless imprudence.

The court did not commit this error. The information alleged that he acted willfully,
maliciously, unlawfully and criminally. The allegation that Faller acted unlawfully
and criminally includes the charge that he acted with negligence.Therefore, the
judgment was affirmed.

ISSUES: Ruling
1. W/N…Faller was wrongly sentenced to a crime he was not charged NO
with since he claims that a crime maliciously and willfully committed is
different from that committed through reckless imprudence

RULING/RATIONALE:
1. No. Faller was convicted of the same crime he was charged. The information
alleges that the he acted willfully, maliciously, unlawfully and criminally. No
objection to this was raised in the Supreme Court. The allegation that Faller
acted unlawfully and criminally includes the charge that he acted with
negligence. Also, Reckless imprudence is not a crime in itself, it is only a way of
committing it and merely determines a lower degree of criminal liability.
LAWS, STATUTES, CODES INVOLVED:
Criminal law and Procedure; Malicous Damage to another’s property; Damage
through reckless imprudence
-under an information for malicious damage to another’s property, the accused may
be convicted of damage through reckless imprudence.
DISPOSITION:
The judgment was affirmed.
Restituto Faller is sentenced to pay a fine of 38 pesos and to indemnify the
offended party (Ramon Diokno) in the same amount, with subsidiary imprisonment
in case of insolvency.
DICTA RELATING TO DOCTRINE:
Very important to note since the purpose of the cases is to relate them to the
doctrines taught in class
SEPARATE RULINGS:
Concurring, dissenting, separate opinions if available
CASES CITED IN CASE:
Pang magis na hahaha. Cases cited by the justice in his decision. Maybe a brief
summary or background of the case if it was important to the present case. If not,
then just the quote or simply the title.