Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1905 > April 1905 Decisions > G.R. No. 1930 April 26, 1905 - UNITED STATES v. MARGARITO ACABAL, ET AL.

004 Phil 467:




PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

EN BANC

[G.R. No. 1930. April 26, 1905. ]

THE UNITED STATES, Complainant-Appellee, v. MARGARITO ACABAL, ET AL., Defendants-Appellants.

Francis J . Berry, for Appellants.

Solicitor-General Araneta, for Appellee.

SYLLABUS


1. CRIMINAL LAW; ILLEGAL DETENTION. — The fact that the defendants entered a house at a late hour at night, on a certain day, and there, in the presence of several witnesses, took a man from that house and sequestrated him, without anything having been known since of that man’s whereabouts, is sufficient to warrant a conviction for the crime of illegal detention, provided for and punished in paragraph 1 of article 482 of the Penal Code.


D E C I S I O N


TORRES, J. :


In a complaint dated September 23, 1903, the individuals, Margarito Acabal and Luis Baldado, were charged by the provincial fiscal of Oriental Negros with the crime of illegal detention, in that these defendants on the 31st of August of the same year, in the nighttime or the morning following, went to the house of Aguedo Lopez, situated in Botong, town of Manjuyud, together with some other unknown individuals, and exacted from Lopez his personal cedula, which, after being exhibited and examined by the defendants with the aid of the light which Micaela Anfone, wife of Lopez, lighted, the two defendants told him that said cedula was of the previous year and for this reason they took him with them on leaving the house, and he has never returned to his house since that time, nor has any news ever been received of his whereabouts; all of which was contrary to law.

The case came on for trial by virtue of the said complaint, and the court, in view of the evidence adduced at the same, rendered judgment on February 18, 1904, sentencing each of the defendants, Margarito Acabal and Luis Baldado, to nineteen years’ reclusion temporal, to indemnify Micaela Anfone, wife of Aguedo Lopez, in the sum of P500, Philippine currency, and to pay the costs of suit.

It has been fully proven in this case that on the night of August 31, or early in the morning of September 1, 1903, several individuals appeared in the neighborhood of the house of Aguedo Lopez an ordered the door of his house to be opened, stating that they came in the name of "justice," and two of them, who were recognized as Margarito Acabal and Luis Baldao, entered the house and required the owner thereof to exhibit his personal cedula, which the latter did; that they examine it by the light of the lamp which Micaela Anfone, his wife, lighted; the latter then and there recognized the two defendants as members of the police, old acquaintances whom she knew, and perceive that Acabal carried a poniard. That after the two defendants examined the cedula they told Lopez that it was a cedula for the previous year, and told him to give himself up as a prisoner and follow them, which he did, without having been allowed to go back to the house to put on a pair of trousers, which trousers had to be brought from the room where one Isabel Andaya was ill in bed, and were handed to him by his wife; that from that moment up to the 17th of February, 1904, the date of the trial, the sequestrated man had to returned to his house, nor were his whereabouts learned, notwithstanding the steps taken by his wife, who went to the president and to the justice of the peace of the town and to the defendants themselves, asking for her husband, for which reason and in view of the negative result of her investigations it was suspected that he had been killed.

It is undeniable then that the crime of illegal detention for more than twenty days provided for and punished in paragraph 1 of article 482 of the Penal Code has been committed, since it has been fully proven (1) that Aguedo Lopez was taken from his house and sequestrated, in the presence of his wife and of another witness who was in house at that time, although sick, and (2) that sequestrated man was completely disappeared and has not returned to his house from the night of August 31, 1903, to February 17, 1904, or up to the present time, hi whereabouts being entirely unknown.

The defendants, Margarito Acabal and Luis Baldado, together with some other unknown individuals, have been fully convicted as principals by direct participation in the commission of this serious crime. The exculpations set up by the defendants and the testimony of the witnesses who were presented by the defense on the trial can not offset or counterbalance the evidence adduced by the prosecution, which fully convinces the mind of the guilt of both defendants. The defendants might have been in the municipal building hours before carrying into effect the sequestration, and it may be true that Baldago was taken sick with cholera, but taken into consideration the short distance between the tribunal and the house of the sequestrated man, situated within the town, it would not be impossible that these defendants might have been seen in the municipal building and then have committed the said crime.

We agree with and accept the considerations made by the court below as regards the character, extent, and preponderance of the evidence of the prosecution over that of the defendants, and to give more credit to that which substantiates the charges, for, starting with the existence of the capture, it has not been proven nor even intimated that the wife of the sequestrated man, who knew the defendants very well previously to the commission of crime, for the reason that they were inhabitants of the same town, and who recognized them on that night by light of a lamp which they used to read the cedula by, should have imputed calumniously the commission of this crime to the defendants, when we take into consideration the steps which she took to locate her husband and the questions which she put to the defendants and to the president and the justice of the peace about his whereabouts, which are the best proof of the truth and certainty of the sequestration which she complained of, starting that the defendants were the authors of the crime, which she informed everybody publicly. Her charges have not been rendered baseless or contradicted by the defendants.

In the commission of the crime there is no mitigating circumstance to be considered, but we do find the aggravating circumstances 8 and 15 of article 10 of the Penal Code, for the reason that the crime was committed at night, and the perpetrator having used cunning, fraud, and deceit, they having declared that they came in the name of justice, with the pretext of examining the cedula which was exhibited by the sequestrated man, which they declared to be of the previous year. Such a condition of affairs as his not having a cedula of the fiscal year would not be legal grounds for the arrest of a person in the late hours of the night. For this reason the defendants have incurred the maximum degree of reclusion temporal.

Therefore, in view of the considerations above stated, we are of the opinion that Margarito Acabal and Luis Baldado should be sentenced to nineteen years of reclusion temporal each, with the accessories provided for in article 59 of the Penal Code, to indemnify jointly and severally the sum of P500 to Micaela Anfone, and to pay the costs in both instances, one-half each, thus affirming the penalty imposed in the judgment appealed from. This case to be returned to the court below with a certified copy of this decision and of the judgment which shall be entered in accordance herewith. So ordered.

Arellano, C.J., Mapa, Johnson and Willard, 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






April-1905 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. 1375 April 1, 1905 - UNITED STATES v. PACIFICO GONZAGA

    004 Phil 364

  • G.R. No. 1703 April 1, 1905 - UNITED STATES v. EUSEBIO CAPADUCIA

    004 Phil 365

  • G.R. No. 1760 April 3, 1905 - UNITED STATES v. IRINEO BIBAL

    004 Phil 369

  • G.R. No. 1988 April 3, 1905 - UNITED STATES v. MARCELO CAPARAS

    004 Phil 370

  • G.R. No. 1530 April 4, 1905 - UNITED STATES v. VENANCIO SANTOS

    004 Phil 373

  • G.R. No. 1683 April 5, 1905 - UNITED STATES v. ANTONIO VIZQUERA

    004 Phil 380

  • G.R. No. 1487 April 6, 1905 - UNITED STATES v. ISMAEL TAN-SECO

    004 Phil 382

  • G.R. No. 1504 April 8, 1905 - UNITED STATES v. ROBERT L. HIGHFILL

    004 Phil 384

  • G.R. No. 1540 April 8, 1905 - UNITED STATES v. VICTOR RAMOS, ET AL.

    004 Phil 389

  • G.R. No. 1537 April 8, 1905 - UNITED STATES v. GERONIMO MILLA

    004 Phil 391

  • G.R. No. 1862 April 8, 1905 - UNITED STATES v. JULIAN DAGALEA

    004 Phil 398

  • G.R. No. 1647 April 11, 1905 - UNITED STATES v. ADAUSTO OCAMPO

    004 Phil 400

  • G.R. No. 1897 April 11, 1905 - UNITED STATES v. POLICARPO AQUINO

    004 Phil 402

  • G.R. No. 1953 April 11, 1905 - UNITED STATES v. PAULINO FUENTES, ET AL.

    004 Phil 404

  • G.R. No. 1588 April 12, 1905 - UNITED STATES v. ANTONIO SAN PEDRO

    004 Phil 405

  • G.R. No. 1939 April 13, 1905 - UNITED STATES v. GUILLERMO MACALINAO

    004 Phil 407

  • G.R. No. 1714 April 14, 1905 - UNITED STATES v. ESTEBAN LOGARIO, ET AL.

    004 Phil 411

  • G.R. No. 1899 April 14, 1905 - UNITED STATES v. RUFINO MAGSAMBOL

    004 Phil 413

  • G.R. No. 2092 April 15, 1905 - UNITED STATES v. GONZALEZ ET AL.

    004 Phil 414

  • G.R. No. 2200 April 15, 1905 - UNITED STATES v. PANTALEON CANTIL

    004 Phil 418

  • G.R. No. 1557 April 17, 1905 - UNITED STATES v. AMADO SANTOS

    004 Phil 419

  • G.R. No. 1943 April 17, 1905 - UNITED STATES v. BENITO SANTA ANA

    004 Phil 421

  • G.R. No. 2134 April 17, 1905 - UNITED STATES v. CAGAYAN ET AL.

    004 Phil 424

  • G.R. No. 1486 April 18, 1905 - UNITED STATES v. FLORENCIO RACINES, ET AL.

    004 Phil 427

  • G.R. No. 1727 April 18, 1905 - UNITED STATES v. JULIO DE LA CRUZ, ET AL.

    004 Phil 430

  • G.R. No. 2170 April 18, 1905 - UNITED STATES v. JUAN CADAY

    004 Phil 431

  • G.R. No. 2176 April 18, 1905 - UNITED STATES v. CANDIDO FULGUERAS

    004 Phil 432

  • G.R. No. 1661 April 19, 1905 - UNITED STATES v. FELICIANO VILLAROSA

    004 Phil 434

  • G.R. No. 1755 April 19, 1905 - UNITED STATES v. SANTIAGO DE LA CRUZ, ET AL.

    004 Phil 438

  • G.R. No. 1773 April 19, 1905 - UNITED STATES v. HILARIO SANTIAGO, ET AL.

    004 Phil 439

  • G.R. No. 2000 April 19, 1905 - UNITED STATES v. VICENTE LIM TICO, ET AL.

    004 Phil 440

  • G.R. No. 2198 April 19, 1905 - UNITED STATES v. SILVERIO NUÑEZ

    004 Phil 441

  • G.R. No. 1800 April 24, 1905 - UNITED STATES v. FERMIN GREGORIO

    004 Phil 443

  • G.R. No. 1871 April 24, 1905 - UNTIED STATES v. FLORENTINO RALLOS

    004 Phil 446

  • G.R. No. 1881 April 25, 1905 - UNITED STATES v. EUSEBIO DE LA SERNA, ET AL.

    004 Phil 448

  • G.R. No. 1925 April 25, 1905 - UNITED STATES v. TOMAS CANETA

    004 Phil 450

  • G.R. No. 2029 April 25, 1905 - UNITED STATES v. CHAUNCEY MCGOVERN

    004 Phil 451

  • G.R. No. 2032 April 25, 1905 - UNITED STATES v. ANTONIO NUBLA

    004 Phil 456

  • G.R. No. 2052 April 25, 1905 - UNITED STATES vs LICAS

    004 Phil 458

  • G.R. No. 2062 April 25, 1905 - UNITED STATES ET AL. v. AGUSTINA BARRERA

    004 Phil 461

  • G.R. No. 2139 April 25, 1905 - UNITED STATES v. ENRICO ILAO

    004 Phil 463

  • G.R. No. 2245 April 25, 1905 - UNITED STATES v. FRANCISCO JAVATE

    004 Phil 465

  • G.R. No. 1910 April 26, 1905 - UNITED STATES v. ROMAN GUSTILO

    004 Phil 466

  • G.R. No. 1930 April 26, 1905 - UNITED STATES v. MARGARITO ACABAL, ET AL.

    004 Phil 467

  • G.R. No. 2118 April 26, 1905 - UNITED STATES v. PABLO VALDEHUEZA

    004 Phil 470

  • G.R. No. 2231 April 26, 1905 - UNITED STATES v. EVARISTO PAYNAGA

    004 Phil 472

  • G.R. No. 2374 April 26, 1905 - RUBERT & GUAMIS v. JOHN C. SWEENEY

    004 Phil 473

  • G.R. No. 1181 April 27, 1905 - UNITED STATES v. ENGRACIO VILLAFUERTE

    004 Phil 476

  • G.R. No. 1612 April 27, 1905 - UNITED STATES v. GEORGE GRAY

    004 Phil 479

  • G.R. No. 1707 April 27, 1905 - UNITED STATES v. JUAN QUILATAN, ET AL.

    004 Phil 481

  • G.R. No. 1932 April 27, 1905 - UNITED STATES v. MARIANO PANGANIBAN, ET AL.

    004 Phil 483

  • G.R. No. 1650 April 28, 1905 - UNITED STATES v. LINO LITONJUA, ET AL.

    004 Phil 485

  • G.R. No. 1090 April 29, 1905 - UNITED STATES v. TORIBIO GONZALEZ

    004 Phil 487

  • G.R. No. 1633 April 29, 1905 - NICOLAS CEPILLO CRUZ v. CHINAMAN CO-CUACO

    004 Phil 489

  • G.R. No. 1766 April 29, 1905 - UNITED STATES v. JUAN ANGEL MICHELENA

    004 Phil 492

  • G.R. No. 1877 April 29, 1905 - UNITED STATES v. RICARDO GUTIERREZ

    004 Phil 493

  • G.R. No. 1934 April 29, 1905 - UNITED STATES v. JUAN DE LEON, ET AL.

    004 Phil 496

  • G.R. No. 1981 April 29, 1905 - UNITED STATES v. ANSELMO DIRIS, ET AL.

    004 Phil 498

  • G.R. No. 1984 April 29, 1905 - UNITED STATES v. GREGORIO HERNANDEZ, ET AL.

    004 Phil 499

  • G.R. No. 1998 April 29, 1905 - UNITED STATES v. ANASTASIO REDION

    004 Phil 500

  • G.R. No. 2057 April 29, 1905 - UNITED STATES v. ADRIANO CONCEPCION

    004 Phil 501

  • G.R. No. 2158 April 29, 1905 - UNITED STATES v. JULIAN BUDIAO, ET AL.

    004 Phil 502