Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1902 > December 1902 Decisions > G.R. No. 944 December 19, 1902 - UNITED STATES v. UBALDO BORNALES

001 Phil 567:




PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

EN BANC

[G.R. No. 944. December 19, 1902. ]

THE UNITED STATES, Complainant-Appellant, v. UBALDO BORNALES, Defendant-Appellee.

Solicitor-General Araneta, for Appellant.

Jose Villegas, for Appellee.

SYLLABUS


1. CRIMINAL PROCEDURE; DISMISSAL. — Where the prosecution has adduced evidence of defendants guilt, although it be by the testimony of the prosecuting witness alone, it is error to dismiss the cause for the failure of the remaining witnesses to appear at the trial.


D E C I S I O N


MAPA, J. :


This is a prosecution for the crime of abduction, defined and punished in article 445 of the Penal Code. In the information five witnesses are cited, among others the woman alleged to have been abducted, to give testimony for the prosecution.

The case having come on trial on the 21st day of April, 1902, the defendant having plead not guilty, it was found necessary to order a continuance, on account of the absence of the witnesses for the prosecution. The case was reset for 9 a.m. on the 25th of the same month. During the trial on that date the abducted woman testified strongly against the defendant. Owing to the lateness of the hour, the case was again continued to 3 o’clock p.m. of the same date. This time having arrived without the appearance of the witnesses for the prosecution who had not yet testified, the court below, without further proceedings, acquitted the defendant, with costs de oficio.

The judge has not stated the legal grounds upon which he reached this conclusion, but whatever they may have been it is unquestionable that the facts charged, if true, constitute the crime of abduction. The testimony of the prosecutrix having been given, which can not be disregarded as an element of proof because it is the testimony of the injured party, but should have been weighed by the court within its discretion like that of any other witness in accordance with section 55 of General Orders, No. 58, the case should have been continued throughout as provided by section 31 of the order cited, and the defendant given an opportunity to introduce evidence on his behalf, as it would be improper to determine the case without giving him an opportunity to make his defense. The defendant not having been given this opportunity, he has been left defenseless in this case. The right to a defense being an essential one, it follows that the trial was fatally defective, and that therefore the judgment rendered therein can not stand (sec. 10, General Orders, No. 58).

We therefore reverse the judgment appealed, with directions to the judge to continue the case in accordance with law, with the costs of this issuance de oficio.

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




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