Home of ChanRobles Virtual Law Library

PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

FIRST DIVISION

[G.R. No. L-3848. March 13, 1908. ]

THE UNITED STATES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. ANDRES GIMENO, Defendant-Appellant.

Rafael Del-Pan, for Appellant.

Attorney-General Araneta, for Appellee.

SYLLABUS


1. THE CEMETERIES ACT; ILLEGAL BURIALS. — Defendants was charged with having issued a permit for the burial of a human body, in violation of section 29 and 37 of Act No. 1498. Held, That, in the absence of proof that burials in the barrio cemetery were prohibited, or that the cemetery had not been legally established, the accused must be acquitted.


D E C I S I O N


JOHNSON, J.:


This defendant was charged with a violation of sections 29 and 37 of Act No. 1458 of the Philippine Commission, was found guilty of said offense, and was sentenced to pay a fine of P25 and the costs. From this instance the defendant appealed to this court.

The defendant was municipal secretary of the pueblo of Bulan and at the same time was secretary of the municipal board of health. On or about the 20th day of May, 1906, by order of the president of said pueblo, he issued a burial certificate to Hipolito Morilla, giving permission for the burial of the body of Ponciano Morilla in the cemetery of the barrio of Butag of said pueblo.

Section 29 of said act provides:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"Except in cases of emergency, any person who shall bury or inter, or cause to be buried or interred, the dead body of any human being or any human remains in any place except in a burial ground or cemetery, now or hereafter lawfully existing, shall, upon conviction, be punished as hereinafter provided."cralaw virtua1aw library

Section 37 provides the punishments for the provisions of said section.

The evidence shows that there had been established in the said barrio of Butag a cemetery and that the body of the deceased was buried therein. There was nothing in the record to show that burials in said cemetery had been prohibited. The prosecuting attorney made no effort to show that said cemetery had not been legally established. There is nothing in said law which prohibits the continued use of cemeteries already established prior to the enactment of said law.

The judgment of the lower court is hereby reversed and the judgment of the lower court is hereby reversed and the defendant is ordered to discharged from custody with costs de oficio. So ordered.

Arellano, C.J., Torres, Mapa, Carson, Willard and Tracey, JJ., concur.

Top of Page