Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1903 > April 1903 Decisions > G.R. No. 1126 April 28, 1903 - UNITED STATES v. HERMOGENES MUYOT

002 Phil 177:




PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

EN BANC

[G.R. No. 1126. April 28, 1903. ]

THE UNITED STATES, Complainant-Appellee, v. HERMOGENES MUYOT, Defendant-Appellant.

Mariano Monroy for Appellant.

Solicitor-General Araneta for Appellee.

SYLLABUS


1. CRIMINAL LAW; EMBEZZLEMENT (ESTAFA); EVIDENCE. — To support a conviction of a collector of accounts for embezzlement it must be proved that the accounts were paid to him by the debtors thereof; it is not sufficient that he has failed to return the accounts of the proceeds.

2. ID.; CONFESSION; SILENCE OF DEFENDANT. — Where the evidence shows that defendant remained silent during a conference relative to the signing of a written admission of embezzlement, such silence can not be deemed a confession.


D E C I S I O N


WILLARD, J. :


The defendant was employed in August or September, 1901, by Don Geronimo Jose as collector. His duty was to collect the accounts connected with the launch D. Vicente. He was discharged the last of July or the first of August, 1902, and a criminal complaint was filed against him for estafa. It charged that he had collected ninety-four different accounts, amounting to 1,043 pesos, front the debtors of Don Geronimo Jose and had not paid over the money. These accounts ran from July 16, 1901, to July 2’2, 1902.

1. That these accounts were delivered to the defendant to collect and that he had not paid the amount thereof to his employer, may be considered as proved. But, with the exception of one item of 40 pesos, there is no evidence that the debtors of Don Geronimo Jose had ever paid these bills.

The testimony of Don Geronimo Jose and of Don Francisco Gonzales, to the effect that they had made investigations and found that the defendant was a defaulter, is not sufficient to establish the essential fact that the defendant had actually received this money from the said debtors.

It is claimed by the Solicitor-General that the failure of the defendant to return the accounts or the money, or to explain this failure, is sufficient to convict him. As the defendant is not required to testify against himself, his failure to explain why he had not retained either the accounts or the money, and his silence on this point when charged with the crime, are not sufficient evidence to show that the debtors had actually paid the money to him. This should have been proved by the debtors themselves. There is no presumption that, when an account has been delivered for collection, it is paid to the person sent to collect it.

After it had been claimed by Don Geronimo Jose that the defendant was a defaulter to the amount of 1,043 pesos, his mother attempted to settle the matter. All instrument was drawn up by a clerk of Don Geronimo to be signed by the defendant. It acknowledged that he had embezzled the above sum. It was read in the presence of the defendant and his mother. The defendant said nothing during the interview. The document was never signed, the mother and Don Geronimo not being able to agree upon its terms.

It is said that the silence of the defendant on this occasion was a confession of his guilt. We call not so hold. By General Orders, No. 58, section 15, paragraph 3, the refusal or neglect of a defendant to testify can not in any manner prejudice him. A person chased with a crime is not called upon to make any explanation or denial, except to plead guilty or not guilty. He can remain silent as well before the trial as during it, and his silence can not be considered as a confession of guilt. Any other rule would lead to the result that, every time anything was said in the presence of a prisoner indicating his guilt, he would be called upon to deny it, whether it was said by the prosecuting attorney, newspaper reporters, police officers, or others.

2. As to the 40 pesos mentioned above, there was sufficient evidence to convict the defendant.

This was a claim against Timoteo Sevilla. The receipted bill delivered to the defendant was found in the possession of this debtor and was produced at the trial. The defendant admitted to Francisco Gonzales, and, as we understand the evidence, to Don Geronimo Jose, that he had collected this amount.

3. To the first complaint presented the defendant demurred. The fiscal having admitted that the demurrer was well taken, the court on October 18 directed the complaint to be amended. The defendant moved to dismiss the amended complaint on the ground that the demurrer had put an end to the proceeding. This motion was denied. The claim of the defendant is that he demurred to the complaint on the fourth ground mentioned in section 21 of General Orders, No. 58, namely, that the facts stated did not constitute a public offense and that this is a detect which can not be avoided by an amendment, as provided in section 23.

This claim can not be sustained. A complaint as drawn may fail to charge an offense by reason of the omission of some material fact which exists, but which the fiscal by oversight has neglected to insert in the complaint. With this fact inserted the complaint could charge an offense. Such a mistake is one that can be avoided been amendment and the court is by said section 23 authorized to so direct.

The judgment is modified by changing, the penalty from six months to two months and one day, and the indemnity from 1,043 pesos to 40 pesos. In all Other respects it is affirmed with costs of this instance de oficio.

Arellano, C.J., Torres, Cooper, Mapa and Ladd, JJ., concur.

McDonough, J., 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






April-1903 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. 1041 April 2, 1903 - UNITED STATES v. RICARDO LUCIANO

    002 Phil 96

  • G.R. No. 958 April 3, 1903 - UNITED STATES v. JUAN BABASA

    002 Phil 102

  • G.R. No. 1024 April 3, 1903 - UNITED STATES v. TIMOTEO CANDELARIA, ET AL.

    002 Phil 104

  • G.R. No. 1141 April 4, 1903 - UNITED STATES v. ELENO LIUANAG, ET AL.

    002 Phil 107

  • G.R. No. 1098 April 6, 1903 - UNITED STATES v. LICERIO MENDOZA

    002 Phil 109

  • G.R. No. 1129 April 6, 1903 - UNITED STATES v. RAFAEL ARCIGA, ET AL.

    002 Phil 110

  • G.R. No. 1086 April 7, 1903 - UNITED STATES v. VICENTE REGIS

    002 Phil 113

  • G.R. No. 1013 April 8, 1903 - UNITED STATES v. SIMPLICIO SENSANO

    002 Phil 119

  • G.R. No. 1139 April 8, 1903 - UNITED STATES v. LEANDRO DIAZ, ET AL.

    002 Phil 124

  • G.R. No. 1185 April 8, 1903 - UNITED STATES v. VENTURA BETIONG

    002 Phil 126

  • G.R. No. 1106 April 15, 1903 - UNITED STATES v. AGUEDO DEL ROSARIO, ET AL.

    002 Phil 127

  • G.R. No. 1113 April 15, 1903 - UNITED STATES v. PEDRO ABUAN, ET AL.

    002 Phil 130

  • G.R. No. 448 April 17, 1903 - UNITED STATES v. PHILIP K. SWEET

    002 Phil 131

  • G.R. No. 1150 April 18, 1903 - UNITED STATES v. ANGEL DE VILLA, ET AL.

    002 Phil 133

  • G.R. No. 1240 April 18, 1903 - FRANCISCO ENRIQUEZ v. BYRON AMBLER

    002 Phil 137

  • G.R. No. 1244 April 18, 1903 - LA COMPAÑIA GENERAL DE TABACOS v. MIGUEL TUPIÑO, ET AL.

    002 Phil 142

  • G.R. No. 1265 April 18, 1903 - EVARISTO PAYNAGA v. GEORGE N. WOLFE

    002 Phil 146

  • G.R. No. 1138 April 20, 1903 - UNITED STATES v. DAMIAN DE LA CRUZ, ET AL.

    002 Phil 148

  • G.R. No. 573 April 21, 1903 - LA JUNTA ADMINISTRADORA DE OBRAS PIAS v. RICARDO REGIDOR, ET AL.

    002 Phil 151

  • G.R. No. 1131 April 23, 1903 - UNITED STATES v. NICASIO SEVILLA

    002 Phil 162

  • G.R. No. 1143 April 23, 1903 - UNITED STATES v. MARINO BALBOA, ET AL.

    002 Phil 165

  • G.R. No. 957 April 25, 1903 - UNITED STATES v. FERNANDO VEGA, ET AL.

    002 Phil 167

  • G.R. No. 584 April 27, 1903 - UNITED STATES v. PEDRO PEREZ, ET AL.

    002 Phil 171

  • G.R. No. 1126 April 28, 1903 - UNITED STATES v. HERMOGENES MUYOT

    002 Phil 177

  • G.R. No. 1127 April 28, 1903 - UNITED STATES v. BIAN JENG

    002 Phil 179

  • G.R. No. 1128 April 29, 1903 - CHIYE MAGATINGE v. LA ELECTRICISTA

    002 Phil 182