Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1908 > August 1908 Decisions > G.R. No. 4054 August 14, 1908 - UNITED STATES v. GUILLERMO ALVARADO

011 Phil 87:




PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

EN BANC

[G.R. No. 4054. August 14, 1908. ]

THE UNITED STATES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. GUILLERMO ALVARADO, Defendant-Appellant.

T. L. McGirl for Appellant.

Attorney-General Araneta for Appellee.

SYLLABUS


1. HOMICIDE; REASONABLE DOUBT. — The evidence, as set forth in the opinion, held not sufficient to show beyond a reasonable doubt, that the accused was guilty of the crime of homicide.


D E C I S I O N


MAPA, J. :


This action was brought for the crime of homicide; the accused was found guilty and sentenced to the penalty of twelve years and one day of reclusion temporal, to pay an indemnity of P1,000 to the heirs of the deceased, and the costs of the proceedings.

For two or three months prior to the affair that gave rise to this action, the Chinaman Chua-Siangco, the deceased, lived in the house of the accused, a fellow-countryman. It has been shown that at about 5 o’clock in the afternoon of the 12th of January, 1907, the said Chua-Siangco died near the front part of the store of the accused which faces the street, and was buried, under authority of the lieutenant of the barrio in which the affair took place, at 8 p. m. of the same day. As to the manner in which said death occurred, the evidence of the prosecution is entirely in conflict with that of the defense. The witnesses for the prosecution, all of whom claim to be eyewitnesses, declare that on said afternoon the accused had a quarrel with the deceased; that the reason or motive therefor they could not understand because they spoke in Chinese; that the former struck the latter three times with his fist, hitting him in the stomach according to some, and according to others on the left side of the chest; that the deceased was knocked down by the blows, falling into a gutter alongside the road, and while down he was still further kicked and struck all over the body by the accused. He never got up, for which reason they believe that he was killed on the spot.

On the other hand the evidence adduced by the defense tends to prove that the deceased died a natural death. The witnesses for the accused state that the deceased was ill with fever four days prior to his death; that at 8 o’clock in the morning of the day in question he took a dose consisting of five spoonfuls of salts with lemon and sugar; that in the afternoon he complained of weakness and sensation of weight in the stomach because he had not had a bowel movement, and that he sat down on a bench outside of the store from which he fell dead about an hour afterwards. According to those witnesses the accused did not have any trouble with the deceased either on that afternoon or at any other time before the affair, and at the moment when the latter died the accused was not in his store but at the house of an acquaintance where he was informed of the occurrence.

The lieutenant of the barrio, whom the accused informed of said death in order to obtain from him the necessary permit for the burial of the deceased, and who went at once to the place of the occurrence, attests that he did’ not see any sign of violence on the body of the deceased; two of the witnesses for the prosecution who were expressly questioned on this point testified the same thing; it is to be observed that one of the latter witnesses helped bury the body, and had, therefore, an opportunity to see it very closely. If the deed imputed to the accused were true, it would seem very strange that none of the persons alluded to saw any marks of violence on the body of the deceased, at least, on the uncovered parts of the same, such as, for example, the face and mouth, since, according to the witnesses for the prosecution, the deceased was struck and kicked on said parts of the body after he had fallen and was lying in the gutter.

On the other hand, it has been shown that the principal witnesses for the prosecution are enemies of the accused. One of them declared that he had had trouble with the latter because he was insulted and abused by him; and, with respect to another witness, it was proven that there had been criminal accusations between him and the accused five days before the date in question. Moreover, there exists the fact that a sister of the last mentioned witness, herself a witness for the prosecution, testified at the trial that she had witnessed the deeds imputed to the accused; upon being questioned by some municipal policemen, who were instructed by the municipal president to make an investigation of the affair prior to the filing of the complaint, she replied that she knew nothing and that she had not witnessed the affair.

In view of such circumstances, we can not consider that the guilt of the accused has been proven beyond all reasonable doubt, even though we take into account a fact to which great importance is attached by the Attorney-General in his brief, namely, that the deceased was buried three or four hours after his death. The accused gave several explanations of this fact, some of which are certainly well proven, such as that no timber nor carpenters could be found to make the coffin wherein the body might be placed, nor persons willing to help him in keeping watch over the body during the night; these statements were corroborated by the lieutenant of the barrio who assisted him, although unsuccessfully, in his search for said persons, no one being willing to render service even under an offer or promise of payment. Whatever the said explanations may be worth, the lack of interest or perhaps the repugnance that the accused would have in keeping the body any longer in his store can easily be understood, inasmuch as the deceased was not related to him but simply a man whom he had admitted to his house out of pure charity. At all events, the fact in question is not by itself necessarily indicative of the culpability of the accused, especially since it was effected by permission of the local authority of the barrio, who personally went to the house where the body was lying and examined the same prior to granting the burial permit.

The judgment appealed from is hereby reversed and the accused fully acquitted with the costs of both instances de oficio. Let the accused be at once released from custody in case he has been detained. So ordered

Arellano, C.J., Torres, Carson, Willard and Tracey, 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






August-1908 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. 3837 August 1, 1908 - BENIGNO CATABIAN v. FRANCISCO TUNGCUL

    011 Phil 49

  • G.R. No. 4537 August 1, 1908 - UNITED STATES v. BONIFACIO POBRE

    011 Phil 51

  • G.R. No. 4381 August 4, 1908 - MANUEL LOPEZ, ET AL. v. RAMON N. OROZCO, ET AL.

    011 Phil 53

  • G.R. No. 4498 August 5, 1908 - UNITED STATES v. LEOCADIO SALGADO

    011 Phil 56

  • G.R. No. 3831 August 6, 1908 - UNITED STATES v. CANUTO BUTARDO, ET AL.

    011 Phil 60

  • G.R. No. 4519 August 7, 1908 - UNITED STATES v. LORENZO IDON

    011 Phil 64

  • G.R. No. 3897 August 10, 1908 - ZACARIAS OMO v. INSULAR GOV’T.

    011 Phil 67

  • G.R. No. 4133 August 10, 1908 - UNITED STATES v. PEDRO DULFO

    011 Phil 75

  • G.R. No. 4027 August 12, 1908 - JOSEFA GARCIA PASCUAL v. LUIS PALOMAR BALDOVI

    011 Phil 79

  • G.R. No. 4054 August 14, 1908 - UNITED STATES v. GUILLERMO ALVARADO

    011 Phil 87

  • G.R. No. 4032 August 15, 1908 - UNITED STATES v. MARCELO F. CONCEPCION

    011 Phil 90

  • G.R. No. 4141 August 15, 1908 - AGUSTINA FAELNAR, ET AL. v. JACINTA ESCAÑO

    011 Phil 92

  • G.R. No. 4330 August 15, 1908 - UNITED STATES v. BENITO FENIX

    011 Phil 95

  • G.R. No. 4340 August 15, 1908 - UNITED STATES v. CHESTER A. DAVIS

    011 Phil 96

  • G.R. No. 4464 August 15, 1908 - UNITED STATES v. FELIPE IDOS

    011 Phil 99

  • G.R. No. 4277 August 18, 1908 - POTENCIANA TABIGUE v. FRANK E. GREEN

    011 Phil 102

  • G.R. No. 4282 August 18, 1908 - UNITED STATES v. CHIONG CHUICO

    011 Phil 106

  • G.R. No. 4287 August 18, 1908 - PHIL. PRODUCTS CO. v. COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS

    011 Phil 107

  • G.R. No. 4317 August 18, 1908 - UNITED STATES v. SANTIAGO MONTECILLO

    011 Phil 109

  • G.R. No. 3818 August 19, 1908 - EDWARD B. MERCHANT v. CITY OF MANILA, ET AL.

    011 Phil 116

  • G.R. No. 4223 August 19, 1908 - NICOLAS LUNOD, ET AL. v. HIGINO MENESES

    011 Phil 128

  • G.R. No. 4382 August 20, 1908 - UNITED STATES v. PEDRO FERNANDEZ, ET AL.

    011 Phil 133

  • G.R. No. 4468 August 21, 1908 - RUBERT & GUAMIS v. C. A. SMITH

    011 Phil 138

  • G.R. No. 4015 August 24, 1908 - ANGEL JAVELLANA v. JOSE LIM, ET AL.

    011 Phil 141

  • G.R. No. 4390 August 24, 1908 - ANG TOA v. BASILIA ALVAREZ, ET AL.

    011 Phil 146

  • G.R. No. 4365 August 25, 1908 - UNITED STATES v. FERNANDO ESTABILLO

    011 Phil 150

  • G.R. No. 4384 August 27, 1908 - SIMEON ALCONABA, ET AL. v. MAGNO ABINEZ

    011 Phil 152

  • G.R. No. 4410 August 27, 1908 - URBANO FLORIANO v. ESTEBAN DELGADO, ET AL.

    011 Phil 154

  • G.R. No. 4477 August 27, 1908 - IN THE MATTER OF THE ESTATE OF MALIGNAD v. BRIGIDA

    011 Phil 158

  • G.R. No. 4529 August 27, 1908 - LUISA TENGCO v. VICENTE SANZ

    011 Phil 163

  • G.R. No. 4513 August 28, 1908 - UNITED STATES v. SIMON CABONCE

    011 Phil 169

  • G.R. No. 4642 August 28, 1908 - UNITED STATES v. SIDNEY LEE BAYLEES

    011 Phil 172

  • G.R. No. 4383 August 31, 1908 - ZACARIAS BAGSA v. CRISOSTOMO NAGRAMADA

    011 Phil 174

  • G.R. No. 4385 August 31, 1908 - WALTER E. OLSEN v. BERT YEARSLEY

    011 Phil 178

  • G.R. No. 4411 August 31, 1908 - UNITED STATES v. RUFINO DELOSO

    011 Phil 180

  • G.R. No. 4689 August 31, 1908 - UNITED STATES v. GO TIAO

    011 Phil 183