THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. EUGENIO GARCIA Y MADRIGAL, defendant-appellant. 1950-02-28 | G.R. No. L-2873 DECISION TUASON, J The sole question presented on this appeal is whether the appellant, being 17 years of age BENEImnENOr The lower court, ignoring defendant's minority, sentenced him to an indeterminate penalty of from 4 years, 2 months and 1 day of prision correccional to 6 years of onsion mayor for tSrmesOFTOBDEN OfWhichneWaSTOURHIGUI! He was also sentenced to pay the offended party, jointly and severally with the other accused, the sum of P85 as indemnity Republic Act No. 47, which amended article 80 of the Revised Penal Code by reducing from 18 to 16 the age below which accused have to "be committed to the custody or care of a public or private, benevolent of charitable institution," instead of being convicted and sentenced to prison, has given rise to the controversy. The Solicitor General believes that the amendment by implication has also amended paragraph 2 of article 68 of the Revised Penal Cade, which provides that when the offender is over fifteen and under eighteen years of age, "the penalty next lower than that prescribed by law shall be imposed, but always in the proper period." There are Well FBEGQHiZ=0NUIES!OfStatuLORMEONSHUGHON which are against the Government's contention. One of these rules is (59 GJ, 999.) This rule applies in the construction of a statute and its amendment, bath being read together as a whole "An amended act is ordinarily to be construed as if the original statute has been repealed, and a new and independent act in the amended form had been adopted in its stead; or, as frequently stated by the courts, so far as regards any action after the adoption of the amendment, as if the statute had been originally enacted in its amended form. [ASTaMEnEMent bECoMmeS|alpartlOftneloriGinal|statltelas if it nad always been contained therein, unless such amendment involves the abrogation of contractual relations between the state and others. ‘0 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." (59 CJ 1096, 1097. (eine no rTETOEabIe COCOERNEETTSRICSTESTHATAGTABHD] 2s itrnow stands and article 80 as amended. et it be remembered that the privilege of article 68, supra, is not by its nature inherent in age but purely statutory and conventional, and that this privilege is granted aduit offenders MyLegalWhiz | Page 1 of 2under given conditions At least there is no clear intention on the part of the Congress ta amend article 68. Indeed the rational presumption is that if there had been such an intention the lawmakers should have said so expressly, instead of leaving the change to inference. One other rule of interpretation that §UaMfEls|with the theory of ifipliedirepeal or SMenamentis tatpenal (IS TSTBE EOTISHLEG in leaSe(OrIUoUbE Stictiyadainst te StateL! 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 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, lliGU=SHOnS{ingOUBE WIDE resolved in favorontnose\iromiWinomitnie (BERARYVISSSUGHEN (Statutory Construction, Crawford, pp. 460-462.) The offense charged in the information of which the appellant was found guilty is punishable under article 294, case No. 5, of the Revised Penal Code, as amended by section 6 of Republic Act No. 18, with prision correccional in its maximum period to prision mayor in its medium period. The penalty one degree lower than this is arresto mayor in its maximum period to prision correccional in its medium period. 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. 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. [jal Mer respects the appealed JUdOMentIS affimed, The appellant will pay the costs of this appeal Moran, C.J., Ozaeta, Pablo, Bengzon, Padilla, Montemayor, Reyes and Torres, JJ., concur. MyLegalWhtz | pase 2 of 2