Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1903 > March 1903 Decisions > G.R. No. 1046 March 21, 1903 - UNITED STATES v. FELIX MANALANG

002 Phil 64:




PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

EN BANC

[G.R. No. 1046. March 21, 1903. ]

THE UNITED STATES, Complainant-Appellee, v. FELIX MANALANG, Defendant-Appellant.

Charles C . Cohn for Appellant.

Solicitor-General Araneta for Appellee.

SYLLABUS


1. CRIMINAL LAW; WAIVER OF DEFECTS IN COMPLAINANT. — The failure to allege that defendant was a member of the Constabulary in a prosecution for violation of a statute applicable only to Constabulary officers and men is waived by failure to object thereto at the trial.


D E C I S I O N


TORRES, J. :


It is a fact, fully proven-in the present case, that on the afternoon of July 11, 1902, Felix Manalang, a member of the Constabulary forces stationed in the Province of Pampanga, went with two companions to the house of Tomas Lacsamana, situated in Bacolor, in search of a revolver. Lacsamana denied that he had such a weapon in his possession. He was thereupon seized and stretched on the ground and tortured by being compelled to swallow water, which was forced into him through a piece of cane placed in his mouth. In the course of the proceedings his assailants broke one of his teeth. He was then taken to one of the stations in the town of Santa Rita, where he was kept until the night of the 12th following. On this date the defendant obtained from Ines Garcia, the wife of Lacsamana, the delivery of the sum of 15 pesos, which Eugenio Tayo, by order of the accused, demanded from Lacsamana’s wife as a condition of his liberation. She was told that if she did not pay the sum of money it would go hard with her husband. This sum, which Felipe Garcia loaned Lacsamana’s wife, having been received by the accused, one of his companions, Felix Alejo, went to the station and told Lacsamana that he might go, which he did. The delivery of the money to Manalang, on the night of July 12, 1902, was witnessed by the wife of the complainant, by Eugenio Tayo, and by Catalino Lacsamana. Pedro de Jesus, member of the municipal council for the barrio of Potrero, reported these facts to the municipal president of the town, who, in turn, reported them to the provincial fiscal, and the latter thereupon filed the information upon which this case is prosecuted.

These facts, which are fully proven by the evidence, constitute the offense defined and punished by section 19 of Act No. 175, passed July 18, 1901. The defendant, a member of the Constabulary, by means of the persecution, ill treatment, and arrest of Tomas Lacsamana obtained the sum of 15 pesos, which the said accused converted to his own use, holding the complainant in his custody until this sum was paid, thereby committing the crime defined and punished by the said law.

The accused pleaded not guilty to the charge, but, notwithstanding his denial and exculpative allegations, which are entirely unsupported by evidence, the record sufflciently discloses his guilt. The fact that the complainant was ill treated and tortNred by being compelled to swallow a considerable quantity of water through a bamboo thrust into his mouth, and in which proceeding one of his teeth was broken; that Tomas Lacsamana was unlawfully imprisoned for more than twenty-four hours in a barrio police station without having been taken before any proper authority; that the defendant demanded the sum of 15 pesos from the wife of the complainant as a condition to his release and did not liberate him until the money was paid, are facts which are fully established by the evidence in the case. It follows, consequently, that the defendant, Felix Manalang, is the author, by direct participation, of the crime prosecuted, and that he has incurred the penalty prescribed by section 19 of Act No. 175, above referred to.

The counsel for the defendant contends that the information was defective by reason of its failure to state that the accused at the time of the commission of the offense was an officer or member of the constabulary forces, this being essential for the existence of the crime prosecuted.

This objection is unavailing, as no exception was taken to this defect by counsel for the defendant in the court below, in which it might have been successfully raised by demurrer. Furthermore, the objection is not well taken, because the defendant was arrested, appeared before the judge, and was present throughout the tria~, and even testified in his own behalf as a member of the Constabulary, without having denied his character as such, or making any objection to being so considered and prosecuted. Therefore such a defect does not vitiate the proceedings, nor has it prejudiced any essential right of the defendant. For these reasons this objection, raised ill the appellate court, does not constitute sufficient ground for the annulment of the proceedings below or the reversal of the judgment.

The offense punished in section 19 of Act No. 175 is compled and consists of various acts specified by the law, all of which are included in the punishable act to which the refers. For this reason it is not strange that an information charging the offense punished by the law should contain statement of the various acts which constitute an integral part of the crime in question.

For these reasons, therefore, and considering that the commission of the crime prosecuted and the guilt of the defendant are fully established by the record, the judgment appealed should be affirmed, with the penalty therein imposed upon the defendant, and with the costs of this instance against him. So ordered.

Arellano, C.J., Cooper, Willard, Mapa 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






March-1903 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. 1000 March 6, 1903 - UNITED STATES v. CARLOS SANTIAGO, ET AL.

    002 Phil 6

  • G.R. No. 1025 March 6, 1903 - UNITED STATES v. BONIFACIO PLANA, ET AL.

    002 Phil 9

  • G.R. No. 955 March 7, 1903 - RAMON CHAVES v. RAMON NERY LINAN

    002 Phil 12

  • G.R. No. 948 March 9, 1903 - UNITED STATES v. MACARIO CALLOTES

    002 Phil 16

  • G.R. No. 1042 March 9, 1903 - UNITED STATES v. EXEQUIEL CASTILLO, ET AL.

    002 Phil 17

  • G.R. No. 866 March 11, 1903 - UNlTED STATES v. APOLONIO SAMSON

    002 Phil 20

  • G.R. No. 1030 March 11, 1903 - UNITED STATES v. NICOLAS TIQUIO, ET AL

    002 Phil 21

  • G.R. No. 453 March 12, 1903 - ANTONIO VENTURA v. PAUL A. MILLER

    002 Phil 22

  • G.R. No. 911 March 12, 1903 - MAXIMO CORTES v. JOSE PALANCA YU-TIBO

    002 Phil 24

  • G.R. No. 559 March 14, 1903 - MANUEL B. BARRIOS v. MARIA PASCUALA DOLO, ET AL.

    002 Phil 44

  • G.R. No. 1021 March 14, 1903 - UNITED STATES v. FRANCISCO LESCANO

    002 Phil 47

  • G.R. No. 1101 March 16, 1903 - UNITED STATES v. ISAAC BAILOSES

    002 Phil 49

  • G.R. No. 893 March 18, 1903 - I. O. CONCHEGULL v. JOSEPH B. HYAMS

    002 Phil 51

  • G.R. No. 1010 March 19, 1903 - UNITED STATES v. JUAN FERIA, ET AL.

    002 Phil 54

  • G.R. No. 1099 March 19, 1903 - UNITED STATES v. MANUEL NAVARRO, ET AL.

    002 Phil 58

  • G.R. No. 1228 March 19, 1903 - JUAN ARANETA v. HEIRS OF TRANQUILINO GUSTILO

    002 Phil 60

  • G.R. No. 1017 March 21, 1903 - UNITED STATES v. GUILLERMO VILLANUEVA

    002 Phil 61

  • G.R. No. 1046 March 21, 1903 - UNITED STATES v. FELIX MANALANG

    002 Phil 64

  • G.R. No. 1047 March 24, 1903 - UNITED STATES v. JUAN DE CASTRO

    002 Phil 67

  • G.R. No. 1060 March 26, 1903 - UNITED STATES v. GUILLERMO LAUREAGA, ET AL.

    002 Phil 71

  • G.R. No. 1251 March 27, 1903 - FRANK MEKIN v. GEORGE N. WOLFE

    002 Phil 74

  • G.R. No. 1006 March 30, 1903 - UNITED STATES v. NAZARIO ALHAMBRA, ET AL.

    002 Phil 80

  • G.R. No. 1034 March 31, 1903 - DOMINGO S. HERNAEZ v. W. F. NORRIS

    002 Phil 83

  • G.R. No. 1093 March 31, 1903 - UNITED STATES v. SANTIAGO MERIN

    002 Phil 88

  • G.R. No. 1114 March 31, 1903 - UNITED STATES v. BARTOLOME OSTREA, ET AL.

    002 Phil 93