Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1915 > October 1915 Decisions > G.R. No. 9430 October 11, 1915

SY YOC v. CHIEF OF POLICE OF THE CITY OF MLA.

031 Phil 640:




PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

FIRST DIVISION

[G.R. No. 9430. October 11, 1915. ]

SY YOC, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. THE CHIEF OF POLICE OF THE CITY OF MANILA, Defendant-Appellant.

Solicitor-General Harvey for Appellant.

No appearance for Appellee.

SYLLABUS


1. HABEAS CORPUS; IDENTITY OF PERSON. — One Sy Yoc, in 1907, together with others, was charged with the crime of robbery, found guilty and sentenced to be imprisoned. The sentence was confirmed by the Supreme Court in 1908. The sentence was returned for execution. In 1909 the bondsmen of Sy Yoc were released from liability under their bond, for the reason that it was made to appear to the satisfaction of the court that Sy Yoc had died in China in 1908. Later, the Sy Yoc in the present case was arrested and detained by the defendant herein, for the purpose of requiring him to comply with the sentence of the court of 1907. Held: That the Sy Yoc, the petitioner in the present case, was not the Sy Yoc who had been sentenced in 1907.


D E C I S I O N


JOHNSON, J. :


On the 2d day of September, 1913, the plaintiff presented a petition in the Court of First Instance of the city of Manila, praying that the writ of habeas corpus should be issued, for the purpose of securing the liberty of the petitioner. At the time of the presentation of the petition he was detained by the chief of police of the city of Manila. The defendant was ordered to answer said petition.

After hearing the evidence adduced during the trial of the cause, the Honorable A. S. Crossfield, judge, issued the writ prayed for and directed that the plaintiff be discharged from the custody of the law. From that decision the defendant appealed to this court.

The facts upon which the plaintiff was detained by the chief of police of the city of Manila may be stated as follows:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

First. That on the 13th day of May, 1907, a complaint was presented in the Court of First Instance of the city of Manila, charging Sixto Galuren, Eugenio Dizon, and a Chinaman called Sy Yoc, with the crime of robbery. Upon said complaint the defendants were duly arrested, arraigned, tried, found guilty, and sentenced, the first named defendants to be imprisoned for a period of one year and one day, and the said Sy Yoc to be imprisoned for a period of one year and six months. From that sentence the defendant, Sy Yoc, appealed to the Supreme Court.

Second. After a consideration of the appeal of the said Sy Yoc by the Supreme Court, the decision of the lower court was affirmed on the 24th day of December, 1908.

Third. The cause was remanded to the lower court for the execution of said sentence.

Fourth. On the 18th day of January, 1909, the bondsmen of the said Sy Yoc were notified to deliver the person of the defendant to the court for the execution of the sentence.

Fifth. On the 20th day of January, 1909, the bondsmen appeared and presented a written statement in which they alleged that the said Sy Yoc had died on the 21st day of November, 1908, in one of the provinces of China.

Sixth. Upon a consideration of the statement made by the bondsmen, the honorable A. S. Crossfield, judge, on the 24th day of February, 1909, issued an order canceling the bond of the said bondsmen, and relieved them from any further responsibility.

Seventh. On the 2d day of September, 1913, the assistant prosecuting attorney of the city of Manila presented a motion in the Court of First Instance, asking that a warrant be issued for the arrest and detention of one Sy Yoc. In said petition, said assistant prosecuting attorney alleged that the said Sy Yoc was the same Sy Yoc who had been theretofore sentenced.

Eighth. Upon said petition the Sy Yoc in the present case was detained by the chief of police.

The question presented by the petition for the writ of habeas corpus in the present case is whether or not the Sy Yoc in the present action is the same Sy Yoc who had been accused of the crime of robbery, together with two others, in the year 1907. During the trial of the cause a large number of witnesses were examined. At the close of the trial, the honorable A. S. Crossfield reached the conclusion that the Sy Yoc in the present case was not the Sy Yoc in the other criminal action.

The testimony in pro and in contra is absolutely irreconcilable. One witness testified that he was a lumber merchant in the city of Manila; that the Sy Yoc in the present case had worked for him continuously from the year 1905 until the year 1911; that in the year 1911, the present Sy Yoc engaged in the lumber business on his own account. These declarations are confirmed by at least three other witnesses. A part of the declaration of said witnesses is confirmed by the fact that at the time the present Sy Yoc was arrested in 1913, he was engaged in the lumber business in the city of Manila. Upon the other hand, a policeman who was in charge of the Luneta police station in 1907, positively identifies the present Sy Yoc as the Sy Yoc who was charged with the crime of robbery. One of the persons who was charged with robbery with Sy Yoc, also claimed that the present Sy Yoc was his codefendant in the former criminal action. A doctor in the Hospicio de San Jose, who treated the Sy Yoc in the former criminal action for certain wounds received at or about the time of the trial of that action, also claims that the present Sy Yoc is the Sy Yoc in the other action.

Upon a full consideration of the contradictory testimony, and taking into consideration the conclusions of the court below, who heard and saw the witnesses, we are inclined to believe that there is greater likelihood that the policeman and the other witnesses who attempted to identify the petitioner, were mistaken, than the witness in whose employ- ment the present Sy Yoc had been for a period of six years continuously; and for that reason, we find that the Sy Yoc in the present case is not the Sy Yoc who had heretofore been convicted of the crime of robbery.

Therefore, the judgment of the lower court is hereby affirmed, and without any finding as to costs, it is so ordered.

Arellano, C.J., Torres, Carson and Araullo, 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






October-1915 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. 9166 October 1, 1915

    CHAN YICK SAM v. PROSECUTING ATTORNEY OF THE CITY OF MLA.

    031 Phil 560

  • G.R. No. 10172 October 1, 1915

    UNITED STATES v. CASIANO BANZUELA, ET AL

    031 Phil 564

  • G.R. No. 10470 October 1, 1915

    UNITED STATES v. FILEMON BAYUTAS

    031 Phil 584

  • G.R. No. 8936 October 2, 1915

    CONSUELO LEGARDA v. N. M. SALEEBY

    031 Phil 590

  • G.R. No. 10340 October 2, 1915

    UNITED STATES v. ESTEBAN ASUNCION

    031 Phil 614

  • G.R. No. 9980 October 6, 1915

    GREGORIO ESCARIO v. ANTERO REGIS, ET AL

    031 Phil 618

  • G.R. No. 9694 October 7, 1915

    UNITED STATES v. EPIFANIO E. GABRIEL

    031 Phil 632

  • G.R. No. 10698 October 7, 1915

    UNITED STATES v. P. D. GARCES

    031 Phil 637

  • G.R. No. 9430 October 11, 1915

    SY YOC v. CHIEF OF POLICE OF THE CITY OF MLA.

    031 Phil 640

  • G.R. No. 9615 October 14, 1915

    VICENTE GOLINGKO v. BRUNO MONJARDIN

    031 Phil 643

  • G.R. No. 8373 October 15, 1915

    KUENZLE & STREIFF v. COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS

    031 Phil 646

  • G.R. No. 9807 October 15, 1915

    UNITED STATES v. SO HAO KA

    031 Phil 649

  • G.R. Nos. 10053 & 10055 October 19, 1915

    UNITED STATES v. ATANASIO CLARAVALL, ET AL.

    031 Phil 652

  • G.R. No. 10628 October 19, 1915

    JOHN R. SCHULTZ v. PEDRO CONCEPCION, ET AL.

    032 Phil 1

  • G.R. No. 10737 October 19, 1915

    UNITED STATES v. REMIGIO ARANIL

    032 Phil 5

  • G.R. No. 9982 October 20, 1915

    MARGARITA GANZON v. MARIA LIMSON

    032 Phil 11

  • G.R. No. 10266 October 20, 1915

    MARGARITA VALENZUELA v. PEDRO UNSON

    032 Phil 19

  • G.R. No. 10503 October 20, 1915

    IRINEO DEL ROSARIO v. INSULAR COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS

    032 Phil 22

  • G.R. No. 10576 October 20, 1915

    LEE JUA v. INSULAR COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS

    032 Phil25cralaw:red

  • G.R. No. 10733 October 20, 1915

    TIN LIO v. INSULAR COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS

    032 Phil 32

  • G.R. No. 10858 October 20, 1915

    PEDRO M. DUARTE v. WALTER H. DADE

    032 Phil 36

  • G.R. No. 9692 October 21, 1915

    PEDRO TIAMSON v. MAGNO TIAMSON

    032 Phil 62

  • G.R. No. 9969 October 26, 1915

    MODESTA BELTRAN v. FELICIANA DORIANO

    032 Phil 66

  • G.R. No. 9921 October 26, 1915

    JOSE VELASCO v. ROSENBERG’S, INC.

    032 Phil 72

  • G.R. No. 10386 October 26, 1915

    TE CHIN BOO v. INSULAR COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS

    032 Phil 76

  • G.R. No. 10699 October 26, 1915

    TAN LIN JO v. INSULAR COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS

    032 Phil 78

  • G.R. No. 10815 October 26, 1915

    AMADO SING JING TALENTO v. INSULAR COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS

    032 Phil 82

  • G.R. No. 10076 October 28, 1915

    CITY OF MANILA v. FERNANDA FELISA COMALES, ET AL.

    032 Phil 85

  • G.R. No. 10788 October 28, 1915

    VICENTE GÑILO v. INSULAR COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS

    032 Phil 100

  • G.R. No. 10828 October 28, 1915

    CANG KAI GUAN v. INSULAR COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS

    032 Phil 102

  • G.R. No. 10790 October 29, 1915

    UNITED STATES v. SIMON TAN CORTESO

    032 Phil 104

  • G.R. No. 10102 October 30, 1915

    C. F. ARBENZ v. OTTO GMUR

    032 Phil 117

  • G.R. No. 10673 October 30, 1915

    UNITED STATES v. BARTOLOME CH. VELOSO

    032 Phil 126