Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1902 > December 1902 Decisions > G.R. No. 919 December 11, 1902 - UNITED STATES v. VICENTE SOTELO

001 Phil 544:




PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

EN BANC

[G.R. No. 919. December 11, 1902. ]

THE UNITED STATES, Complainant-Appellee, v. VICENTE SOTELO, Defendant-Appellant.

Francisco Ortigas, for Appellant.

Solicitor-General Araneta, for Appellee.

SYLLABUS


1. CRIMINAL LAW; CONFESSION; SUFFICIENCY OF EVIDENCE. — Where the evidence of the prosecuting witness as to defendant’s confession is corroborated by telegrams of the latter asking for pardon and mercy and promising restitution the evidence is sufficient to support a conviction.


D E C I S I O N


LADD, J. :


The defendant, Sotelo, has been convicted under No. 1 of article 518 of the Code of the larceny of 1,450 pesos, Mexican, the property of Warner, Barnes & Co., and in the possession of J. R. C. Smith, the representative of that firm in Albay.

Sotelo was employed as escribiente in Smith’s office, and at times had access to the safe where the money was kept. Smith suspected him of the larceny, and accused him of it in the presence of an officer of the Constabulary and another person. Sotelo at first denied his guilt, but upon the officer threatening to have him arrested he requested a private interview with Smith and, according to the latter’s testimony, made a full confession to him.

If Smith’s evidence as to the confession were uncorroborated, we might possibly regard it as unsafe to convict. But it is admitted that subsequent to this interview with Smith, and after the initiation of criminal proceedings against him, Sotelo sent several telegrams to the manager of the firm of Warner, Barnes & Co. in Manila, in which he asked for pardon and mercy, and that the prosecution be withdrawn and the affair concealed from his family, and promised restitution.

The ingenious argument of counsel for the defense utterly fails to convince us that this conduct is reconcilable with the hypothesis of innocence.

The evidence in the record discloses other circumstances pointing to the defendant’s guilt, to which we need not advert. We regard the evidence as to the verbal confession, corroborated as it is by the telegrams, as amply sufficient to sustain the conviction.

There were no aggravating or extenuating circumstances and the court below erred in applying the penalty in the minimum instead of the medium grade. The penalty should be three years six months and twenty-one days of presidio correccional.

With the modification indicated the judgment affirmed with costs of first instance, and the cause will be returned to the court below for the execution of such judgment. So ordered.

Arellano, C.J., Torres, Cooper and Willard, JJ., concur.

Smith and Mapa, JJ., did not sit in this case.




Back to Home | Back to Main




















chanrobles.com





ChanRobles On-Line Bar Review

ChanRobles Internet Bar Review : www.chanroblesbar.com

ChanRobles MCLE On-line

ChanRobles Lawnet Inc. - ChanRobles MCLE On-line : www.chanroblesmcleonline.com






December-1902 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. 970 December 1, 1902 - UNITED STATES v. TEODORO REYES

    001 Phil 517

  • G.R. No. 571 December 3, 1902 - UNITED STATES v. THOMAS E. KEPNER

    001 Phil 519

  • G.R. No. 1005 December 3, 1902 - JOSE V. L. GONZAGA v. W.F. NORRIS

    001 Phil 529

  • G.R. No. 1035 December 4, 1902 - MARIA DEL CARMEN VIUDA DE BUSTILLOS v. ROQUE GARBANZOS

    001 Phil 532

  • G.R. No. 21 December 8, 1902 - SIMONA BRILLANTES v. MANUEL BRILLANTES ET AL.

    001 Phil 533

  • G.R. No. 1120 December 8, 1902 - DY CHUAN LENG, ET AL. v. BYRON S. AMBLER

    001 Phil 535

  • G.R. No. 926 December 9, 1902 - UNITED STATES v. PAULO CATEQUISTA

    001 Phil 537

  • G.R. No. 593 December 10, 1902 - UNITED STATES v. JOAQUIN FERNANDEZ Y HERRERIAS ET AL.

    001 Phil 539

  • G.R. No. 891 December 11, 1902 - JUANA DOMINGO v. WARDEN OF BILIBID PRISON

    001 Phil 542

  • G.R. No. 919 December 11, 1902 - UNITED STATES v. VICENTE SOTELO

    001 Phil 544

  • G.R. No. 868 December 15, 1902 - UNITED STATES v. JUAN SANTIAGO

    001 Phil 545

  • G.R. No. 1026 December 15, 1902 - UNITED STATES v. VICTORINO CORREA ET AL.

    001 Phil 549

  • G.R. No. 1078 December 15, 1902 - JOHN W. HOEY v. R. S. BALDWIN

    001 Phil 551

  • G.R. No. 574 December 17, 1902 - UNITED STATES v. BONIFACIO MODAMA

    001 Phil 559

  • G.R. No. 513 December 19, 1902 - BENITO LEGARDA Y TUASON v. VICENTE GARCIA VALDEZ

    001 Phil 562

  • G.R. No. 944 December 19, 1902 - UNITED STATES v. UBALDO BORNALES

    001 Phil 567

  • G.R. No. 945 December 19, 1902 - UNITED STATES v. MELCHOR ABELINDE ET AL

    001 Phil 568

  • G.R. No. 960 December 19, 1902 - UNITED STATES v. BIBIANO CAPISONDA

    001 Phil 575

  • G.R. No. 991 December 19, 1902 - UNITED STATES v. FRANCISCO NAVA

    001 Phil 580

  • G.R. No. 861 December 20, 1902 - UNITED STATES v. DOMINGO VIERA

    001 Phil 584

  • G.R. No. 850 December 23, 1902 - LOS HIJOS DE I. DE LA RAMA v. ERIBERTO MIJARES

    001 Phil 585

  • G.R. No. 1003 December 23, 1902 - PIO LABAYEN v. ROSENDO HERNAEZ

    001 Phil 587

  • G.R. No. 551 December 24, 1902 - MARIANO DEVEZA v. SIMEON GUINOO

    001 Phil 589

  • G.R. No. 81 December 27, 1902 - UNITED STATES v. RAMON GOMEZ RICOY

    001 Phil 595

  • G.R. No. 34 December 31, 1902 - PABLO PALMA v. JUAN CAÑIZARES

    001 Phil 602

  • G.R. No. 483 December 31, 1902 - DAMIAN HERMITAÑO v. MARCELINO CLARITO

    001 Phil 609

  • G.R. No. 496 December 31, 1902 - UNITED STATES v. WILLIAM FOWLER ET AL.

    001 Phil 614

  • G.R. No. 899 December 31, 1902 - UNITED STATES v. FELICITAS ORTIZ

    001 Phil 616

  • G.R. No. 932 December 31, 1902 - PEDRO REGALADO v. LUCHSINGER & CO.

    001 Phil 619