Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1906 > February 1906 Decisions > G.R. No. 2650 February 16, 1906 - UNITED STATES v. PEDRO TOLOSA

005 Phil 616:




PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

EN BANC

[G.R. No. 2650. February 16, 1906. ]

THE UNITED STATES, Complainant-Appellee, v. PEDRO TOLOSA, Defendant-Appellant.

Felipe Buencamino, for Appellant.

Solicitor-General Araneta, for Appellee.

SYLLABUS


1. CRIMINAL LAW; HOMICIDE; SELF DEFENSE; SUFFICIENCY OF PROOF. — Conviction for homicide can not be had when testimony of the defendant, corroborated by that of two eyewitnesses, shows that the deceased unjustly and unlawfully attacked the defendant with a heavy piece of bamboo, and that, in order to save himself from further grave injury, the defendant inflicted upon his aggressor wounds with a pocket knife, as a result of which the latter died.

2. ID.; ID.; ID.; CONFESSION; HEARING, PRELIMINARY. — An admission by the defendant at the preliminary investigation that he inflicted upon the deceased the wounds in question is not a confession of guilt in the legal sense of the word, and is not a plea of guilty.


D E C I S I O N


MAPA, J. :


In the judgment appealed from the defendant was sentenced for the crime of homicide to fourteen years eight months and one day of imprisonment (reclusion temporal), to indemnify the heirs of the deceased in the sum of 1,000 pesos, Philippine currency, and to pay the costs of these proceedings.

The Solicitor-General now asks this court to acquit the defendant on the ground that, in his opinion, the latter acted in self-defense when he inflicted the wounds which caused the death of the deceased. We agree with the Solicitor-General. The testimony of the defendant, corroborated as it is by that of the two eyewitnesses to the occurrence, is sufficient proof of the fact that the deceased unjustly and unlawfully attacked the defendant, striking him with his fist and kicking him until he, the defendant, fell to the ground, and continuing the aggression with a heavy piece of bamboo with which he struck him several blows, as a result of which he, the defendant, seeking to save himself from a further attack with the piece of bamboo, drew a pocketknife from his pocket and attacked the deceased, inflicting upon him the wounds which resulted in his death a few hours later. It appears from this testimony that this attack upon the defendant was not preceded by any provocation on his part. If this be true, it would appear that this is a case of legitimate defense which exempts the defendant from all criminal liability.

The probatory force of this testimony has not been overcome by any evidence introduced at the trial. No eyewitness was called in support of the Government’s case. The extrajudicial statement made by the deceased some hours before his death, to the justice of the peace who conducted the preliminary investigation, even assuming that it was admissible as evidence, is not in conflict with the testimony of the witnesses for the defense, since the deceased limited himself to making a general statement as to there having been a fight between himself and the defendant, a fact which is certainly not denied either by the defendant or his witnesses. The deceased gave no details from which, in this case as in others, the juridical nature of the specific act could be ascertained.

The court below considered as evidence of the guilt of the defendant the fact that he pleaded guilty at the preliminary investigation. The court below seems to be of the opinion that this plea is of decisive importance in this case. The defendant stated that he confessed to being guilty of having inflicted certain wounds upon the deceased with a weapon which he then exhibited to the court. When the complaint was read to him in the Court of First Instance he pleaded not guilty and thereafter testified in his own behalf, giving a detailed account of the occurrence in the manner above stated.

It seems clear that the plea made by the defendant at the preliminary investigation was not intended as a confession of his guilt in the legal sense of the word, but was merely an admission that he was the person who had inflicted upon the deceased the wounds in question. (U.S. v. Bernardo Patala, 1 No. 112.) So clear is this that when the complaint was read to him after it had been drawn up with all the necessary details of a formal charge, he pleaded not guilty to the crime set out in the complaint, admitting, however, when he testified in his own behalf that he had inflicted the fatal wounds upon the deceased, but alleging that he did so in self- defense and in order to repel the unlawful aggression on the part of deceased.

The judgment of the court below is hereby reversed, and the defendant is acquitted, with the costs of both instances de oficio. Let judgment be entered forthwith, and the defendant be immediately discharged from the custody of the law. So ordered.

Torres, Johnson, Carson and Willard, JJ., concur.

Endnotes:



1. 2 Phil. Rep., 752.




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






February-1906 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. 2607 February 2, 1906 - UNITED STATES v. FERNANDO NIETO

    005 Phil 582

  • G.R. No. 2243 February 8, 1906 - MATEO ALDEGUER v. GREGORIO APOSAGA, ET AL.

    005 Phil 584

  • G.R. No. 2404 February 8, 1906 - PEDRO SISON v. CALIXTO SILVA, ET AL.

    005 Phil 587

  • G.R. No. 2343 February 10, 1906 - ILDEFONSO TAMBUNTING v. CITY OF MANILA

    005 Phil 590

  • G.R. No. 2344 February 10, 1906 - GONZALO TUASON v. DOLORES OROZCO

    005 Phil 596

  • G.R. No. 2641 February 10, 1906 - UNITED STATES v. DOMINGO MACASADIA

    005 Phil 602

  • G.R. No. 1524 February 12, 1906 - UNITED STATES v. TRANQUILINO HERRERA

    005 Phil 604

  • G.R. No. 2282 February 12, 1906 - UNITED STATES v. JOSE DIAZ TAN-BAUCO

    005 Phil 606

  • G.R. No. 2357 February 13, 1906 - FREDERICK NELLE v. BAER

    005 Phil 608

  • G.R. No. 2437 February 13, 1906 - MONICA CASON v. FRANCISCO WALTERIO RICKARDS, ET AL.

    005 Phil 611

  • G.R. No. 1618 February 14, 1906 - MIGUEL SIOJO v. GERARDO DIAZ

    005 Phil 614

  • G.R. No. 2650 February 16, 1906 - UNITED STATES v. PEDRO TOLOSA

    005 Phil 616

  • G.R. No. 1311 February 17, 1906 - UNITED STATES v. PEDRO GIRON

    005 Phil 619

  • G.R. No. 1409 February 17, 1906 - UNITED STATES v. WILLIAM CROZIER

    005 Phil 621

  • G.R. No. 2250 February 17, 1906 - PEDRO REGALADO v. LUCHSINGER & CO.

    005 Phil 625

  • G.R. No. 2424 February 17, 1906 - UNITED STATES v. COSME GUZMAN

    005 Phil 630

  • G.R. No. 2451 February 17, 1906 - UNITED STATES v. LEON LINESES

    005 Phil 631

  • G.R. No. 2622 February 17, 1906 - TEODORO S. BENEDICTO v. JULIAN PERIZUELO

    005 Phil 632

  • G.R. No. 2647 February 17, 1906 - UNITED STATES v. FELIX PAQUIT

    005 Phil 635

  • G.R. No. 2333 February 19, 1906 - EDWARD B. MERCHANT v. ABELARDO LAFUENTE

    005 Phil 638

  • G.R. No. 1752 February 26, 1906 - NICASIO CAPULE v. EVARISTO CAPISTRANO

    005 Phil 646

  • G.R. No. 2442 February 26, 1906 - GREGORIO CEDRE v. JAMES C. JENKINS

    005 Phil 647

  • G.R. No. 2618 February 26, 1906 - UNITED STATES v. JOHN M. FLEMISTER

    005 Phil 650

  • G.R. No. 2409 February 27, 1906 - IN RE: FELIPE G. CALDERON

    005 Phil 658

  • G.R. No. 2715 February 27, 1906 - BEHN v. F. ROSATZIN

    005 Phil 660

  • G.R. No. 2789 February 27, 1906 - WILLIAM JOHNSON v. CIRILO DAVID

    005 Phil 663

  • G.R. No. 1489 February 28, 1906 - RAFAEL ENRIQUEZ v. FRANCISCO V. ENRIQUEZ

    005 Phil 668

  • G.R. No. 2702 February 28, 1906 - UNITED STATES v. ISIDORO OLIVAN ET AL.

    005 Phil 671

  • G.R. No. 3120 February 28, 1906 - BRYAN, LANDON CO. v. AMERICAN BANK

    005 Phil 672