You're currently signed in as:
User
Add TAGS to your cases to easily locate them or to build your SYLLABUS.
Please SIGN IN to use this feature.
https://www.lawyerly.ph/juris/view/c7ed?user=fbGU2WFpmaitMVEVGZ2lBVW5xZ2RVdz09
[US v. ANDRES GIMENO](https://www.lawyerly.ph/juris/view/c7ed?user=fbGU2WFpmaitMVEVGZ2lBVW5xZ2RVdz09)
{case:c7ed}
Highlight text as FACTS, ISSUES, RULING, PRINCIPLES to generate case DIGESTS and REVIEWERS.
Please LOGIN use this feature.
Show printable version with highlights

[ GR No. 3848, Mar 13, 1908 ]

US v. ANDRES GIMENO +

DECISION

10 Phil. 380

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

THE UNITED STATES, PLAINTIFF AND APPELLEE, VS. ANDRES GIMENO, DEFENDANT AND APPELLANT.

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 25 and the costs. From this sentence 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:
"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."
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 defendant is ordered to be discharged from custody with costs de oficio.  So ordered.

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

tags