People v. Tribunal of the Judicial District of San Juan
People v. Tribunal of the Judicial District of San Juan
Opinion of the Court
delivered the opinion of the court.
The question raised in this certiorari proceedings is whether a district judge has power,.under Act No. 259 of April 3, 1946 (Laws of 1946, p. 534), to suspend the sentence imposed upon a person ■ convicted of involuntary man-slaugther, which is a misdemeanor.
Secton 2 of Act No. 259 in its pertinent part provides: (Spanish text)
“El efecto de la sentencia que se imponga, a toda persona que cometa cualquier delito grave que no sea asesinato en primer grado, deberá ser suspendido y el sentenciado puesto a prueba, siempre que, al tiempo de imponer dicha sentencia, concurran los siguientes re-quisitos ."1
The respondent judge, relying on the provisions which we have just cited, suspended the sentence imposed upon a person convicted of involuntary manslaughter, considering it a “serious offense” {“delito grave”), within the meaning of the statute. The People asks that the order of the respondent judge be vacated, contending that under Act No. 259 sentence may not be suspended in misdemeanor cases. The defendant has appeared through his attorney and contends that the sentence may be suspended in all cases, whether or not the offense is a felony.
Let us consider first the defendant’s contention. He states “that the intention of the lawmaker can not be to ap
We can not agree with the contention of the defendant. Act No. 259 only authorizes the suspension of the sentences in cases involving serious offense. There is nothing in the Act which authorizes us to conclude that the legislative intent was any other than that clearly expressed when it used the adjective “serious” (“grave”). And apart from the letter of the Act, we know nothing regarding the legislative purpose, since apparently there is no official record of public hearings, or reports of legislative committees, or debates in the Legislature, if indeed there were such hearings, reports, or debates. We have no basis, therefore, to harbor doubts as to the construction of the Act, the letter of which clearly limits its scope to serious offenses. It is true that it is not easy for us to understand the reason the Legislature had to grant the privilege of suspended sentences to persons convicted of serious offenses and deny it to persons convicted of lesser offenses.
It remains to be considered whether involuntary man-slaugther is included within the serious offenses (“delitos graves”) to which the Act refers. Under the Anglo-American system of criminal, law which prevails in Puerto Bieo, crimes are divided, according to the punishment they entail, in two classes: felonies and misdemeanors.
“. . . El homicidio involuntario . . . Será considerado como un delito menos grave a todos los efectos de la ley . . . ”8
It very clearly appears, therefore, that when the Legislature authorized the suspension of' sentences in cases of “delito grave” (“serious offense”), it referred to felonies. It is argued, nevertheless, that since each time that the Legislature has used the term “delito grave” (“serious of-ffense”) as equivalent to “felony” it has used both terms, and that, inasmuch as in Act No. 259 it did not use the term “felony,” it was its intention to make reference to a classification of offenses as serious and less serious, other than the one defined in the Penal Code, that is, the historical classification of felonies and misdemeanors. One difficulty we have with this argument is that we are not offered, nor can we conceive, any standard to establish that other clas-
We have probably gone to unnecessary length in considering the scope and meaning of the expression “delito grave” as used in Act No. 259. The expression has a definite and well-grounded meaning in our legislation and jurisprudence,- and only one meaning: it means felony. Act No. 259 authorizes the suspension of sentences, therefore, in felony cases only. The offense of involuntary manslaughter is not a felony, and consequently, Act No. 259 does not authorize the suspension of the sentence in the case at bar.
The sentence of the lower court should be set aside and the case remanded for the imposition of the proper sentence.
The English version reads.as follows: "The effect of the sentence imposed on any person guilty of a felony other than murder in the first degree, shall he suspended, and the person sentenced placed on probation whenever at the time of imposing said sentence the following requisites concur: ...”
Act No. 19 of March 12, 1914 (Laws of 1914, p. 151), authorizes the suspension of sentences in cases of misdemeanor, but only in cases in which the defendant is under sixteen years of age or over sixty.
Sections 13 and 14 of the Penal Code of 1902.
See, for instance, $$ 13, 18, 63, 78, 87, 90, 91, 95, 126, 128, 147, 150, 203, and 209 of the Penal Code.
See, for instance, $§ 14, 30, 36, 37, 42, 88, 92, 96, 97, 98, and 103 of the Penal Code.
See, for instance, $$ 63, 78, 126, 147, 150, 203, and 209 of the Penal Code.
See, for instance, §§ 18, 87, 91, 95, and 128 of the Penal Code.
Section 204, Penal Code.
The English text, in its pertinent part, recites as follows: “. . . Involuntary homicide ... It shall be considered as a misdemeanor for all legal purposes ...”
We have not stopped to investigate whether or not Act No. 259 is the first in Puerto Rico, which in using the expression delito grave, omits its equivalent in English.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.