Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1905 > September 1905 Decisions > G.R. No. 2100 September 15, 1905 - UNITED STATES v. MATIAS DE LA CRUZ, ET AL.

005 Phil 24:




PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

EN BANC

[G.R. No. 2100. September 15, 1905. ]

THE UNITED STATES, plaintiff and appellees, v. MATIAS DE LA CRUZ, ET AL., Defendants-Appellants.

Charles H . Marple, for Appellants.

Attorney-General Wilfley, for Appellee.

SYLLABUS


1. CONFESSION; ADMISSIBILITY. — The extrajudicial confession of the defendant admitted at the trial as evidence against him should have been excluded because it was not proved that it was made freely and voluntarily. (Act. No. 619, sec. 4.)


D E C I S I O N


TORRES, J. :


In a written complaint filed on the 19th of April, 1904 the defendants in this case, Matias de la Cruz and Crisanto Corpuz, were charged by a police officer with the crime of theft, in that, with intent to gain, and without the knowledge of the owner thereof, they took and carried away a gold ring set with diamonds of the value of 550 pesos, Mexican currency, and another ring, set with a sapphire and diamonds, of the value of 250 pesos, Mexican currency, making a total of 800 pesos, Mexican currency, equivalent to 4,000 pesetas, Mexican currency, all of this in violation of the statute in such cases made and provided.

The complaint having been duly allowed, the court after hearing the evidence, acquitted the defendant, Crisanto Corpuz, and sentenced the other defendant, Matias de la Cruz, to two years’ imprisonment (prision correccional) without making any order as to the restitution of the articles stolen, or their value, nor as to the costs. From this judgment the defendant, Matias de la Cruz, appealed to this court.

Even assuming that the crime of theft herein charged was actually committed — that is to say, that the disappearance of the jewelry belonging to the offended party, Tomas Cabangis, was due to theft — the fact remains that there is nothing of record which satisfactorily shows that Matias de la Cruz is guilty, or that he was the person who took the said articles. He pleaded not guilty, and there is not sufficient evidence of record to convince us that he had any participation in the commission of the crime. The owner of the articles stolen testified that he found in the possession of the defendant, Crisanto Corpuz, a key, with which the box containing the missing jewelry might have been opened, but this fact, in itself, is not conclusive. He was therefore properly acquitted by the court below. It does not appear that the defendant, Matias de la Cruz, who denied it, opened the box with the key in question for the purpose of stealing the jewelry, not that he had such key in his possession, or made use of any such key as alleged by the offended party.

As to extrajudicial confession alleged to have been made by the defendant, Matias de la Cruz, before G. William Marshall, a member of the police force, it should be borne in mind that the defendant, Matias de la Cruz, in his sworn statement absolutely denied that he committed the theft which he is now charged, alleging "that he made the confession to Marshall for the reason that he was maltreated . . . be another person who appeared also to be a member of the police force." A confession made under such circumstances can not be considered as competent evidence of the guilt of the person making such confession. Section 4 Act No. 619 of the Philippine Commission, dated February 6, 1903, provides:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"No confession of any person charged with crime shall be received as evidence against him by any court of justice unless it be first shown to the satisfaction of the court that it was freely and voluntarily made and not the result of violence, intimidation, threat, menace, or of promises or offers of reward or leniency."cralaw virtua1aw library

There is nothing in the record to indicate that this confession was made by the defendant, Matias de la Cruz, freely and voluntarily, and that it was not the result of violence, intimidation, threat, or menace. It can not, therefore, be received as evidence against him.

Furthermore, a person charged with a crime is presumed to be innocent until the contrary is proved, and in case of a reasonable doubt as to his guilt he is entitled to an acquittal. This is the case here, and the defendant should be acquitted. (Section 57, General Orders, No. 58.)

For the reasons above stated, we are of opinion that the judgment of the court below should be reversed as to the defendant, Matias de la Cruz, who is hereby acquitted, with the costs de oficio.

Let the case be returned to the court below with a certified copy of this decision and of the judgment to be entered in accordance herewith for its execution. So ordered.

Arellano, C.J., Mapa, Johnson, Carson 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






September-1905 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. 1572 September 1, 1905 - ENRIQUE F. SOMES v. WIFE AND SON OF IGNACIO GORRICHO

    004 Phil 713

  • G.R. No. 2738 September 1, 1906

    UNITED STATES v. MORO SARIHUL

    004 Phil 716

  • G.R. No. 1888 September 2, 1905 - PETRONILA VALERA v. SEVERINO PURUGGANAN

    004 Phil 719

  • G.R. No. 1837 September 5, 1905 - ESTEBAN QUIROS v. D. M. CARMAN

    004 Phil 722

  • G.R. No. 1889 September 5, 1906

    JOHN B. EARLY v. SY GIANG

    004 Phil 727

  • G.R. No. 2027 September 5, 1905 - JOHN B. EARLY v. SY-GIANG

    004 Phil 730

  • G.R. No. 1783 September 6, 1905 - UNITED STATES v. SILVINO ARCEO

    004 Phil 733

  • G.R. No. 1850 September 6, 1905 - NATIVIDAD AGUILAR v. PLACIDO LAZARO

    004 Phil 735

  • G.R. No. 1884 September 7, 1905 - PRESENTACION INFANTE v. MANUEL T. FIGUERAS

    004 Phil 738

  • G.R. No. 2078 September 7, 1905 - VICENTE BENEDICTO v. ESTEBAN DE LA RAMA, ET AL.

    004 Phil 746

  • G.R. No. 2205 September 7, 1905 - EMILIO BUENAVENTURA v. JUANA URBANO, ET AL.

    005 Phil 1

  • G.R. No. 1875 September 9, 1905 - RUDOLPH WAHL v. DONALDSON SIM & CO.

    005 Phil 11

  • G.R. No. 2026 September 13, 1905 - ALEJANDRO A. SANTOS v. ANGEL LIMUCO, ET AL.

    005 Phil 15

  • G.R. No. 2122 September 13, 1905 - PEDRO T. ACOSTA v. DAVID FLOR

    005 Phil 18

  • G.R. No. 2100 September 15, 1905 - UNITED STATES v. MATIAS DE LA CRUZ, ET AL.

    005 Phil 24

  • G.R. No. 2028 September 16, 1905 - C. HEINSZEN & CO. v. HENRY M. JONES

    005 Phil 27

  • G.R. No. 2036 September 18, 1905 - MARIA MANONA v. DIONISIO OBLERO

    005 Phil 29

  • G.R. No. 2033 September 19, 1905 - RUFINA CAUSIN v. FORTUNATO RICAMORA

    005 Phil 31

  • G.R. No. 2045 September 20, 1905 - ADRIANO MORTIGA v. VICENTE SERRA, ET AL.

    005 Phil 34

  • G.R. No. 1746 September 21, 1905 - TOMAS OSMEÑA v. JOSE GORORDO

    005 Phil 37

  • G.R. No. 2275 September 21, 1905 - UNITED STATES v. IGNACIO DALASAY

    005 Phil 41

  • G.R. No. 1890 September 22, 1905 - JOHN B. EARLY v. SY-GIANG

    005 Phil 42

  • G.R. No. 2126 September 25, 1905 - UNITED STATES v. SY VINCO

    005 Phil 47

  • G.R. No. 2879 September 25, 1905 - EDWIN CASE v. METROPOLE HOTEL AND RESTAURANT

    005 Phil 49

  • G.R. No. 1698 September 26, 1905 - JULIAN BORROMEO v. JOSE F. FRANCO, ET AL.

    005 Phil 49

  • G.R. No. 862 September 27, 1905 - JOSE VASQUEZ v. BENITO SANCHEZ

    005 Phil 56

  • G.R. No. 2288 September 27, 1905 - UNITED STATES v. FELIX GARCIA

    005 Phil 58

  • G.R. No. 2805 September 27, 1905 - MARIANO ANDRES v. GEORGE N. WOLFE

    005 Phil 60

  • G.R. No. 2781 September 28, 1905 - VICTOR LOPEZ v. W. MORGAN SHUSTER, ET AL.

    005 Phil 65

  • G.R. No. 1913 September 29, 1905 - FRANCISCO RODRIGUEZ v. FRANCISCO MARTINEZ

    005 Phil 67

  • G.R. No. 2086 September 29, 1905 - P. ELADIO ALONSO v. MUNICIPALITY OF PLACER

    005 Phil 71

  • G.R. No. 2366 September 29, 1905 - PATRICIA ABOLENCIA v. GUILLERMO MAAÑO

    005 Phil 76

  • G.R. No. 1472 September 30, 1905 - E.J. SMITH AND RAFAEL REYES v. JACINTA LOPEZ, ET AL.

    005 Phil 78

  • G.R. No. 1876 September 30, 1905 - UNITED STATES v. SMITH BELL & COMPANY

    005 Phil 85

  • G.R. No. 2808 September 30, 1905 - FELIX BARCELONA v. DAVID J. BAKER, ET AL.

    005 Phil 87