GR L 5969; (April, 1953) (Digest)
G.R. No. L-5969 April 29, 1953.
ALFREDO DALAO Y PANILO, petitioner, vs. FRANCISCO GERONIMO, Judge of the Municipal Court of Manila, respondent.
FACTS
Petitioner Alfredo Dalao y Panilo was charged before the Municipal Court of Manila with the crime of attempted bribery on June 14, 1952. The information alleged that on or about June 9, 1950, in Manila, the petitioner inserted two one-peso bills into his driver’s license and delivered the money to a patrolman to avoid arrest for a traffic violation, but the officer refused and arrested him. When ordered to plead, the petitioner moved to quash the information on the ground that the criminal action had prescribed. The respondent judge denied the motion, ruling that the penalty for attempted bribery is destierro, a correctional penalty, and thus the prescriptive period is five years. The petitioner contends that the correct penalty is arresto menor in its minimum and medium periods, making the prescriptive period two months, and since the charge was filed more than two years after the alleged offense, it had prescribed.
ISSUE
Whether the criminal action for attempted bribery had prescribed, which hinges on the determination of the correct penalty for the offense and its corresponding prescriptive period.
RULING
The petition for certiorari and prohibition is denied. The Supreme Court, citing its prior decisions in Uy Chin Hua vs. Hon. Judge Rafael Dinglasan (G.R. No. L-2709) and People vs. Emilio Santos y Bautista (G.R. No. L-3582), held that the penalty imposable for attempted bribery is destierro. Since destierro is classified as a correctional penalty under Article 25 of the Revised Penal Code, the period of prescription for the offense is ten years according to Article 90. Therefore, the criminal action filed on June 14, 1952, for an offense allegedly committed on June 9, 1950, had not prescribed. The Court found the petitioner’s contention that the penalty is arresto menor untenable.
SEPARATE OPINION:
Chief Justice Paras, with whom Justice Reyes concurred, dissented. He maintained that the penalty for attempted bribery is arresto menor in its minimum and medium periods (1 day to 20 days), making the prescriptive period two months. Consequently, the criminal action filed more than two years after the alleged offense had prescribed. He argued that it is anomalous for the prescriptive period of attempted bribery to be longer than that for consummated bribery.