[G.R. No. 43448. January 11, 1936. ]
THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. FILOMENO DEL ROSARIO, Defendant-Appellant.
Jose Ciria Cruz for Appellant.
Solicitor-General Hilado for Appellee.
CRIMINAL LAW; POSSESSION OF "JUETENG" LISTS; PETITION FOR CLEMENCY. — The appellant raises in his brief no question for determination by this court by reason of an error of fact or violation of law committed by the trial judge, but merely implores clemency, "being a sickly man of 55 years of age, with a wife and six children dependent on his work." Held: That the petition should have been addressed to the Chief Executive and not to this court whose mission is confined to correcting errors of inferior courts in ascertaining the facts and in applying the law.
D E C I S I O N
Filomeno del Rosario y Natividad stands charged with possession of jueteng lists in violation of section 824 of the Revised Ordinances of the City of Manila. This case originated from the municipal court of Manila where the accused had been sentenced to fifteen days imprisonment, with costs, which penalty had been affirmed, on appeal, by the Court of First Instance of Manila. In both instances, the accused pleaded guilty to the charge. The accused, as a last resort, appeals to this court, but here raises no question for our determination involving error either of law or fact, and simply implores clemency "because the accused is a sickly man of 55, with a wife and six children to support."cralaw virtua1aw library
The offense to which the accused pleaded guilty is punishable with a fine not exceeding P200, or with imprisonment not exceeding six months, or both, at the discretion of the court. The mitigating circumstance of plea of guilty is offset by that of recidivism, as the record shows that the accused had formerly been convicted of a kindred offense to that in question. Thus viewed, the appealed judgment sentencing him to fifteen days imprisonment, with costs, may be considered lenient.
The reasons alleged in support of the appeal show that the same should have been addressed to the Chief Executive and not to this court whose mission is confined to correcting errors committed by inferior courts in ascertaining the facts and in applying the law. The trial court committed no error of either kind and its judgment should be affirmed, with costs.
Avanceña, C.J., Abad Santos, Hull and Vickers, JJ., concur.