Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1906 > April 1906 Decisions > G.R. No. 2318 April 30, 1906 - UNITED STATES v. AGO-CHI

006 Phil 227:




PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

FIRST DIVISION

[G.R. No. 2318. April 30, 1906. ]

THE UNITED STATES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. AGO-CHI (alias GO-GAY-CHY), Defendant-Appellant.

H. D. Terrell, for Appellant.

Solicitor-General Araneta, for Appellee.

SYLLABUS


1. COMPLAINT; VERIFICATION; SIGNATURE OF DEPONENT. — The signature of a person who swears to a complaint is not an essential requisite thereof, and its omission is at most a mere defect of form and not of substance.


D E C I S I O N


CARSON, J. :


The complaint in this case is as follows:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"The undersigned accuses Ago-Chi (alias Go-Gay-Chy) of the crime of assassination, committed as follows:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"That on or about the 12th day of May, 1904, in the city of Manila, Philippine Islands, the said Ago-Chi (alias Cho-Gay-Chy) did willfully, unlawfully, and feloniously with malice aforethought, with deliberate premeditation with treachery by employing means and methods and forms in the execution of said crime tending directly and especially to insure its execution without risk to the person of the said Ago-Chi (alias Go-Gay-Chy) arising from any defense the injured party might make — with vindictiveness, by deliberately and inhumanely increasing the sufferings of the person attacked — assault, attack, beat, strike, cut, and stab one Chua-Chong with a dangerous and deadly weapon, to wit, a knife or bolo, inflicting upon the said Chua-Chong fatal wounds, from which the said Chua-Chong then and there died. That in the commission of said crime the following aggravating circumstances were present:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"Advantage was taken of superior strength, and means were employed to weaken the defense; the crime was committed in the nighttime. All contrary to the form of the statute in such made and provided.

"C. R. TROWBRIDCE.

"Subscribed and sworn to this 21st day of May, 1904, before me by George W. Marshall.

"J. McMICKING,

Clerk, Court of First Instance, City of Manila."cralaw virtua1aw library

The accused was found guilty of the crime of assassination as charged, and sentenced to death.

Counsel for appellant contends that the trial court was without jurisdiction to try the case because, as he alleges, the accused was deprived of his right to a preliminary trial. It does not appear from the record that such preliminary trial was not in fact granted the accused, and in the absence of affirmative proof to the contrary it must be presumed that the trial court proceeded according to law, and no objection having been made at the trial, the accused must be taken to have waived his right to a preliminary trial, if in fact he was not given the benefit thereof. (U. S. v. Cockrill. 1)

Appellant also maintains that the complaint was insufficient because it was signed by one C. R. Trowbridge and sworn to by one George W. Marshall, Section 4 of General Orders, No. 58, dated at Manila, April 23, 1900, defines a complaint as "a sworn written statement made to a court or magistrate that a person has been guilty of a designated offense," and section 6 of said order provides that a complaint is sufficient if it shows —

"(1) The name of the defendant, or, if his name can not be discovered, that he is described under a fictitious name, with a statement that his true name is unknown to the informant or official signing the same. His true name may be inserted at any stag of the proceedings instituted against him, whenever ascertained.

"(2) The designation of the crime or public offense charged.

"(3) The acts of omissions complained of as constituting the crime or public offense in ordinary and concise language, without repetition, not necessarily in the words of the statute, but in such form as to enable a person of common understanding to know what is intended, and the court to pronounce judgment according to right.

"(4) That the offense was committed within the jurisdiction of the court and is triable therein.

"(5) The names of the persons against whom, or against whose property, the offense was committed, if known."cralaw virtua1aw library

It thus appears that the signature of the person who swears to a complaint is not an essential requisite thereof, and its omission is at most s mere defect of form and not of substance. Section 10 of General Orders, No. 58, provides that —

"No information or complaint is insufficient, nor can the trial, judgment, or other proceedings be affected by reason of a defect in matter of form which does not tend to prejudice a substantial right of the defendant upon the merits."cralaw virtua1aw library

The evidence of record proves beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused did unlawfully kill the said Chua-Chong on the night of the 12th day of May, 1904 and in the house of the said Chua Chong in the city of Manila.

No one except the accused and his victim was present at the commission of the crime, and while the evidence strongly tends to sustain the findings of the trial court that it was done with "deliberate premeditation, treachery, and vindictiveness," nevertheless we do not think that the circumstantial evidence upon which the trial court based its conclusions sustains these findings beyond a reasonable doubt.

In the absence of satisfactory proof that the commission of the crime was marked by one or more of these qualifying circumstances, the judgment and sentence of the trial court should be, and is hereby, reversed, and instead thereof we find the accused, Ago-Chi (alias Go-Gay-Chy), guilty of the crime of homicide, as defined and penalized in article 404 the Penal Code, and the commission of the offense having been marked by two aggravating circumstances (Nos. 15 and 20 of art. 10 of the Penal Code) we impose upon the said Ago-Chi (alias Go-Gay-Chy) the penalty of twenty years’ imprisonment (reclusion temporal) in its maximum degree, the accessory penalties in article 59 of the Penal Code, the cost of the trial in both instances, and the civil indemnification of the heirs of the deceased in the sum of 1,000 pesos. After the expiration of ten days from the date of final judgment let the record be remanded to the court from the whence it came for proper action. So ordered.

Arellano, C.J., Torres, Mapa, and Willard, JJ., concur.

Endnotes:



1. Not reported.




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-1906 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. 2400 April 3, 1906 - UNITED STATES v. HOMER E. GRAFTON

    006 Phil 55

  • G.R. No. L-2461 April 4, 1906 - UNITED STATES v. MARTIN SARTE

    008 Phil 737

  • G.R. No. 2069 April 4, 1906 - W. M. TIPTON v. VICENTE CENJOR Y CANO

    006 Phil 64

  • G.R. No. 2220 April 4, 1906 - W. M. TIPTON v. MARIANO VELASCO CHUA-CHINGCO

    006 Phil 67

  • G.R. No. 2338 April 4, 1906 - BRAULIO FELICIANO v. LORENZO DEL ROSARIO

    006 Phil 70

  • G.R. No. 2467 April 4, 1906 - NICASIO MAGNO v. MARIA BUGAYONG

    006 Phil 71

  • G.R. No. 2382 April 5, 1906 - ARSENIO JIMENEZ v. JULIO JAVELLANA

    006 Phil 73

  • G.R. No. 2307 April 9, 1906 - UNITED STATES v. CHU CHANG

    006 Phil 74

  • G.R. No. 3268 April 9, 1906 - VICTOR D. GORDON v. GEORGE N. WOLFE

    006 Phil 76

  • G.R. No. 2233 April 10, 1906 - UNITED STATES v. AMBROSIO MINA

    006 Phil 78

  • G.R. No. 2717 April 10, 1906 - UNITED STATES v. FELICIANO EJERCITO

    006 Phil 80

  • G.R. No. 1562 April 11, 1906 - RAFAEL ENRIQUEZ v. A. S. WATSON & CO.

    006 Phil 84

  • G.R. No. 2342 April 11, 1906 - CONCEPCION CALVO v. ANGELES OLIVES

    006 Phil 88

  • G.R. No. 2412 April 11, 1906 - PEDRO ROMAN v. ANDRES GRIMALT

    006 Phil 96

  • G.R. No. 2484 April 11, 1906 - JOHN FORTIS v. GUTIERREZ HERMANOS

    006 Phil 100

  • G.R. No. 2533 April 11, 1906 - UNITED STATES v. FLORENTINO PAETE

    006 Phil 105

  • G.R. No. 2598 April 11, 1906 - N. N. BASILA BROS. v. FARES ACKAD

    006 Phil 107

  • G.R. No. 2747 April 11, 1906 - UNITED STATES v. AGUSTIN BASCO

    006 Phil 110

  • G.R. No. 3137 April 11, 1906 - ROMAN DE LA ROSA v. GREGORIO REVITA

    006 Phil 112

  • G.R. No. 1561 April 16, 1906 - RAFAEL ENRIQUEZ v. A. S. WATSON & CO.

    006 Phil 114

  • G.R. No. 2386 April 16, 1906 - MIGUEL FUENTES v. JUANA CANON Y FAUSTINO

    006 Phil 117

  • G.R. No. 2494 April 16, 1906 - CATALINA ARGUELLES v. THOMAS D. AITKEN

    006 Phil 120

  • G.R. No. 2506 April 16, 1906 - F. STEWART JONES v. INSULAR GOVERNMENT

    006 Phil 122

  • G.R. No. 2507 April 16, 1906 - CRISTOBAL RAMOS Y MARTINEZ v. INSULAR GOVERNMENT

    006 Phil 134

  • G.R. No. 2539 April 16, 1906 - VICENTE BALPIEDAD v. INSULAR GOVERNMENT

    006 Phil 135

  • G.R. No. 2540 April 16, 1906 - SEPA CARIÑO v. INSULAR GOVERNMENT

    006 Phil 138

  • G.R. No. 2754 April 16, 1906 - UNITED STATES v. CIPRIANO JARANDILLA

    006 Phil 139

  • G.R. No. 2963 April 16, 1906 - LA COMPAÑIA GENERAL DE TABACOS v. CITY OF MANILA

    006 Phil 140

  • G.R. No. 1816 April 17, 1906 - CARLOS GSELL v. VALERIANO VELOSO YAP-JUE

    006 Phil 143

  • G.R. No. 1882 April 17, 1906 - UNITED STATES v. CARLOS AYALA

    006 Phil 150

  • G.R. No. 2334 April 18, 1906 - VICENTE W. PASTOR v. MACARIO NICASIO

    006 Phil 152

  • G.R. No. 2309 April 19, 1906 - UNITED STATES v. ANDERSON TAYLOR

    006 Phil 162

  • G.R. No. 2460 April 19, 1906 - UNITED STATES v. G. L. MUHN

    006 Phil 164

  • G.R. No. 2508 April 19, 1906 - FRANCISCO BEECH v. FELICISIMA GUZMAN

    006 Phil 168

  • G.R. No. 3174 April 20, 1906 - HARRY J. FINNICK v. JAMES J. PETERSON

    006 Phil 172

  • G.R. No. 2377 April 23, 1906 - TEODORO S. BENEDICTO v. JOHN H. GRINDROD

    006 Phil 179

  • G.R. No. 2317 April 25, 1906 - UNITED STATES v. FRANCISCO BALBAS

    006 Phil 184

  • G.R. No. L-2330 April 25, 1906 - UNITED STATE v. CHARLES J. COCKRILL

    008 Phil 742

  • G.R. No. 2402 April 26, 1906 - APOLINARIO MODESTO v. CONCEPCION LEYVA

    006 Phil 186

  • G.R. No. L-2524 April 27, 1906 - CARMEN AYALA DE ROXAS v. AGAPITA MAGLONSO, ET AL.

    008 Phil 745

  • G.R. No. 3026 April 27, 1906 - MELCHOR BABASA v. PAUL W. LINEBARGER, ET AL.

    012 Phil 766

  • G.R. No. 2241 April 27, 1906 - PRUDENCIA DEL ROSARIO v. SEVERINA LERMA

    006 Phil 192

  • G.R. No. 2440 April 27, 1906 - TELESFORO ALO v. CLODOALDO ROCAMORA

    006 Phil 197

  • G.R. No. 2471 April 27, 1906 - SEVERINA LERMA Y MARTINEZ DE ALMEDA v. EMETERIO ALVAREZ

    006 Phil 202

  • G.R. No. 2391 April 28, 1906 - ANASTASIO MATEOS v. FELIX LOPEZ

    006 Phil 206

  • G.R. No. 2713 April 28, 1906 - UNITED STATES v. AGUSTIN JOSE

    006 Phil 211

  • G.R. No. 2729 April 28, 1906 - DEL-PAN v. MARTINIANO M. VELOSO

    006 Phil 213

  • G.R. No. 1963 April 30, 1906 - BAER SENIOR & CO.’S SUCCESSORS v. LA COMPAÑIA MARITIMA

    006 Phil 215

  • G.R. No. 2077 April 30, 1906 - MARIA CONCEPCION SEBASTIAN LUCIA v. MATEO PEREZ

    006 Phil 219

  • G.R. No. 2308 April 30, 1906 - NIEVES ARAUJO v. GREGORIA CELIS

    006 Phil 223

  • G.R. No. 2318 April 30, 1906 - UNITED STATES v. AGO-CHI

    006 Phil 227

  • G.R. No. 2466 April 30, 1906 - ROBERT LIENAU v. INSULAR GOVERNMENT

    006 Phil 230

  • G.R. No. 2470 April 30, 1906 - PASTOR LEMA Y MARTINEZ v. DIONISIA ANTONIA

    006 Phil 236

  • G.R. No. 2518 April 30, 1906 - HERMENEGILDO ALFONSO v. PEDRO NATIVIDAD

    006 Phil 240

  • G.R. No. 2720 April 30, 1906 - COMPAÑIA AGRICULA DE ULTRAMAR v. MARCOS DOMINGO

    006 Phil 246