Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1906 > March 1906 Decisions > G.R. No. 2430 March 9, 1906 - UNITED STATES v. JUAN LEANDRO VILLARINO, ET AL.

005 Phil 697:




PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

EN BANC

[G.R. No. 2430. March 9, 1906. ]

THE UNITED STATES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. JUAN LEANDRO VILLARINO AND EULALIO PEÑA, Defendants-Appellants.

Claudio Gabriel and Francisco Rodriguez, for Appellants.

Solicitor-General Araneta, for Appellee.

SYLLABUS


1. CONSPIRACY; COMPETENCY OF EVIDENCE. — The discovery of a document purporting to be a commission appointing one charged with "conspiracy" as an officer of the armed forces which it is alleged the conspirators were organizing, is not competent evidence against him where it is not shown that he received or accepted such commission.


D E C I S I O N


CARSON, J. :


Juan L. Villarino and Eulalio Peña, the appellants in this case, were convicted of the crime of conspiracy, as defined and penalized in section 4 of Act No. 292 of the Philippine Commission, and sentenced the first to five years’ imprisonment with hard labor and $4,000 fine, and second to four years’ imprisonment with hard labor and $3,000 fine, respectively, and both to suffer the subsidiary imprisonment prescribe in the Penal Code in case of failure to pay fines imposed in criminal proceedings, and to the payment of their proportionate share of the costs.

The evidence introduced at the trial, including the confession of Juan L. Villarino, and various papers and documents proven to have emanated from him, corroborated by the testimony of several witnesses, fully sustains the findings of guilt as to him, we find no prejudicial error in the proceedings leading up to the imposition of sentence. The court erred, however, in imposing subsidiary imprisonment in case of failure to pay the fine, there being no provision for such imprisonment in the act of the Commission defining and penalizing the crime of which he was convicted.

We do not think the evidence of record is sufficient to sustain a finding of guilt as to his co-accused, Eulalio Peña. There is no evidence whatever connecting with him with the conspiracy in which it is alleged he took part, except only an alleged confession which he is said to have signed in one of the police stations of the city of Manila. In view of the circumstances under which this alleged confession is said to have been made, and in view, furthermore, of the form and manner in which it is drawn up, we are not prepared to approve a finding of guilt based solely thereon, uncorroborated by any testimony connecting the accused with the crime which he is alleged to have committed. A document was introduced at the trial purporting to be a commission appointing the said Eulalio Peña brigandier-general of the armed forces which it is alleged the conspirators were organizing, but there is no evidence whatever to show that Peña ever received or accepted such appointment, or in fact knew of its existence. The prosecution attempted to connect him with this document by introducing evidence to show that one Ladislao Luna, near whose house the said document was discovered, and who himself was charged with being a member of the conspiracy, had stated that this commission, together with certain other papers and documents, had been entrusted to him by Peña for safe-keeping. This evidence, however, was entirely inadmissible, as heresay, Luna himself not having been put on the stand.

The judgment and sentence of the trial court, in so far as it relates to Juan Leandro Villarino, is hereby affirmed, except in so far as it attempts to impose upon him subsidiary imprisonment, as to which said judgment and sentence is reversed, and the judgment and sentence in so far as it applies to the said Eulalio Peña is reversed, and the said Eulalio Peña is hereby acquitted, and will be set at liberty forthwith.

The said Juan Leandro Villarino will pay his proportionate share of the costs of this appeal, those of Eulalio Peña being declared de oficio in both instances. So ordered.

Arellano, C.J., Torres, 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






March-1906 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. 1904 March 3, 1906 - FRANCISCO GONZALEZ QUIROS v. CARLOS PALANCA TAN-GUINLAY

    005 Phil 675

  • G.R. No. 2763 March 3, 1906 - W.L. WRIGHT v. ALFRED F. SMITH, ET AL.

    005 Phil 681

  • G.R. No. 1451 March 6, 1906 - UNITED STATES v. AURELIO TOLENTINO

    005 Phil 682

  • G.R. No. 2500 March 8, 1906 - MARIA DE LA CONCEPCION MARTINEZ CAÑAS v. MARIANO TUASON, ET AL.

    005 Phil 688

  • G.R. No. 2645 March 8, 1906 - FRANCISCA CABREROS v. VICTORINO PROSPERO

    005 Phil 693

  • G.R. No. 1928 March 9, 1906 - UNITED STATES v. NICOMEDES DINGLASAN, ET AL.

    005 Phil 695

  • G.R. No. 2430 March 9, 1906 - UNITED STATES v. JUAN LEANDRO VILLARINO, ET AL.

    005 Phil 697

  • G.R. No. 2434 March 9, 1906 - UNITED STATES v. BERNARDO BOAC

    005 Phil 699

  • G.R. No. 1974 March 15, 1906 - CATHOLIC CHURCH v. A. W. HASTINGS, ET AL.

    005 Phil 701

  • G.R. No. 2020 March 15, 1906 - GERMANN & CO. v. LUIS R. YANGCO, ET AL.

    005 Phil 717

  • G.R. No. 2452 March 15, 1906 - MATILDE BALLESTER v. GONZALO LEGASPI

    005 Phil 722

  • G.R. No. 2600 March 15, 1906 - UNITED STATES v. FRANK DE L. CARRINGTON

    005 Phil 725

  • G.R. No. 3139 March 15, 1906 - ALEJANDRO SANTOS v. CELESTINO VILLAFUERTE

    005 Phil 739

  • G.R. No. 2116 March 16, 1906 - BERNARDINO CACNIO v. LAZARO BAENS

    005 Phil 742

  • G.R. No. 2327 March 17, 1906 - LUIS PEREZ SAMANILLO v. W.A. WHALEY, ET AL.

    005 Phil 747

  • G.R. No. 2457 March 17, 1906 - UNITED STATES v. ANICETO DADACAY

    006 Phil 1

  • G.R. No. 2575 March 17, 1906 - MARIA DE LA CONCEPCION MARTINEZ CAÑAS v. MUNICIPALITY OF SAN MATEO

    006 Phil 3

  • G.R. No. 2570 March 21, 1906 - UNITED STATES v. ANASTASIO ASUNCION

    006 Phil 9

  • G.R. No. 2292 March 22, 1906 - UNITED STATES v. FRANCISCO CASTRO

    006 Phil 10

  • G.R. No. 2721 March 22, 1906 - RAFAEL MOLINA v. ANTONIO DE LA RIVA

    006 Phil 12

  • G.R. No. 2603 March 26, 1906 - UNITED STATES v. FRANK DE L. CARRINGTON

    006 Phil 20

  • G.R. No. 2695 March 26, 1906 - UNITED STATES v. DOMINGO YSIP

    006 Phil 26

  • G.R. No. 2733 March 27, 1906 - UNITED STATES v. NICOLAS ARCEO

    006 Phil 29

  • G.R. No. 1458 March 29, 1906 - MAX L. FORNOW v. J. C. HOFFMEISTER

    006 Phil 33

  • G.R. No. 2735 March 29, 1906 - UNITED STATES v. FRANCISCO REYES

    006 Phil 38

  • G.R. No. 2969 March 29, 1906 - UNITED STATES v. FRANCISCO J. REYES

    006 Phil 40

  • G.R. No. 1009 March 31, 1906 - UNITED STATES v. IGNACIO SANTA MARIA

    006 Phil 44

  • G.R. No. 1202 March 31, 1906 - FRANCISCO SAEZ CO-TIONGCO v. CO-QUING-CO

    006 Phil 46

  • G.R. No. 1922 March 31, 1906 - CITY OF MANILA v. FRANCISCO GAMBE

    006 Phil 49

  • G.R. No. 2336 March 31, 1906 - JOAQUIN PELLICENA CAMACHO v. LEONCIO GONZALEZ LIQUETE

    006 Phil 50

  • G.R. No. 2676 March 31, 1906 - UNITED STATES v. EUSTAQUIO HORCA

    006 Phil 52