G.R. No. 1639 : August 18, 1905

FACTS:
On April 19, 1903, the accused, Ricardo Delfin, a corporal of the Philippine Constabulary, was on guard duty at the San Lazaro Hospital in Santa Cruz, Manila. He absented himself from his post in the morning and returned at noon in a carromata. Under the pretext of acting upon orders from his captain to collect the arms of his subordinates, he took the revolvers and ammunition from privates Loriano (or Laureano) de la Rosa and Eugenio Patrimonio. He was unable to secure the revolver of a third private, Alberto Dimalanta. Immediately after collecting the arms, Delfin left via Calle Magdalena and did not return to his post or barracks. The incident was reported, and an investigation confirmed he had deserted, taking the government-issued firearms and ammunition.

Approximately four months later, in August 1903, Delfin was arrested by Corporal Prudencio Bustos at the Calumpit railway station in Bulacan as he was about to board a train to Dagupan. He was brought back to Manila and turned over to the authorities. At trial, Delfin pleaded not guilty, claiming he had been kidnapped by five brigands and held in the mountains for about five months before escaping. He presented no evidence to support this defense.

ISSUE:
Whether or not the accused, Ricardo Delfin, is guilty of the crime of desertion under Act No. 619.

RULING:
Yes, the accused is guilty of desertion.

The Supreme Court found the prosecution’s evidence conclusive. The facts established that Delfin, a duly enlisted and paid member of the Constabulary, absented himself without leave and with the intent not to return, taking government property (firearms and ammunition) with him. His absence and failure to report lasted for months until his arrest. The Court rejected his defense of kidnapping as highly improbable and unsupported by evidence.

The crime is defined and punished under Section 7 of Act No. 619 of the Philippine Commission (February 6, 1903). The Court affirmed the lower court’s judgment, sentencing Ricardo Delfin to two years of imprisonment at hard labor and a fine of two thousand pesos, Philippine currency, plus costs.

The Court made two important doctrinal points:
1. The special law (Act No. 619) does not provide for subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency in paying the fine. Therefore, no subsidiary imprisonment could be imposed.
2. The provisions of the Spanish Penal Code and provisional laws regarding subsidiary imprisonment and crediting preventive detention time are not applicable to crimes punished under this special Act, as it is based on a different legislative system.

The decision of the lower court was affirmed in toto.