Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • US vs. Abad Santos

    Uploaded by

    Mervin Jay Suaybaguio
    98 views1 page
    - The case involves Antonio Abad Santos, the owner of a printing establishment called "The Excelsior", who was accused of violating regulations that required him to record business entries for each day, including January 5, 1915. - However, Abad Santos employed a bookkeeper who was responsible for making the entries, and the failure to record the January 5th entry was due to the bookkeeper's omission, not Abad Santos' knowledge or consent. - The court ruled that one cannot be held criminally responsible for the acts of another committed without their knowledge or consent, and reversed Abad Santos' conviction and acquitted him.

    Original Description:

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    - The case involves Antonio Abad Santos, the owner of a printing establishment called "The Excelsior", who was accused of violating regulations that required him to record business entries for each day, including January 5, 1915. - However, Abad Santos employed a bookkeeper who was responsible for making the entries, and the failure to record the January 5th entry was due to the bookkeeper's omission, not Abad Santos' knowledge or consent. - The court ruled that one cannot be held criminally responsible for the acts of another committed without their knowledge or consent, and reversed Abad Santos' conviction and acquitted him.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    98 views1 page

    US vs. Abad Santos

    Uploaded by

    Mervin Jay Suaybaguio
    - The case involves Antonio Abad Santos, the owner of a printing establishment called "The Excelsior", who was accused of violating regulations that required him to record business entries for each day, including January 5, 1915. - However, Abad Santos employed a bookkeeper who was responsible for making the entries, and the failure to record the January 5th entry was due to the bookkeeper's omission, not Abad Santos' knowledge or consent. - The court ruled that one cannot be held criminally responsible for the acts of another committed without their knowledge or consent, and reversed Abad Santos' conviction and acquitted him.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 1

    [G.R. No. 12262. February 10, 1917.

    ]
    THE UNITED STATES , plaintiff-appellee, vs. ANTONIO ABAD SANTOS, defendant-
    appellant.
    Quirino Abad Santos for appellant.
    Attorney-General Avanceña for appellee

    MORELAND, J p:

    Facts

    The case is about the owner of a printing establishment called "The Excelsior". It is required by
    law to keep a book in which he should make the entries required by Internal Revenue Law.

    Appellant Abad Santos was accused of violating the provisions of said regulation since he failed
    to make any entry for the 5th day of January, 1915, indicating whether any business was done on
    that day or not. So, he was convicted and sentenced to pay a fine of P10.

    It must be noted, however, that he regularly employed a bookkeeper who was in complete charge
    of the book in which the entries referred to should have been made and that the failure to make
    the entry required by law was due to the omission of the bookkeeper of which appellant knew
    nothing.

    Issue

    Whether or not the accused should be responsible for the omission of an entry in the book dated
    January 15, 1915 which is a violation of Internal Revenue Law

    Ruling

    Courts will not hold one person criminally responsible for the acts of another, committed without
    his knowledge or consent, unless there is a statute requiring it so plain in its terms that there is no
    doubt of the intention of the Legislature. Criminal statutes are to be strictly construed. No person
    should be brought within their terms who is not clearly within them, nor should any act be
    pronounced criminal which is not clearly made so by the statute (S. U. vs. Madrigal, 27 Phil.
    Rep., 347.)

    The judgment of conviction is reversed and the accused acquitted. Costs de officio. So ordered.

    You might also like