ChanRobles™ Virtual Law Library | chanrobles.com™  
Main Index Law Library Philippine Laws, Statutes & Codes Latest Legal Updates Philippine Legal Resources Significant Philippine Legal Resources Worldwide Legal Resources Philippine Supreme Court Decisions United States Jurisprudence
Prof. Joselito Guianan Chan's The Labor Code of the Philippines, Annotated Labor Standards & Social Legislation Volume I of a 3-Volume Series 2019 Edition (3rd Revised Edition)
 

 
Chan Robles Virtual Law Library
 









 

 
UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE
 

 
PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE
 

   
August-1916 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. 9366 August 1, 1916 - YAP TICO & CO. v. H. C. ANDERSON

    034 Phil 626

  • G.R. No. 10010 August 1, 1916 - CHU JAN v. LUCIO BERNAS

    034 Phil 631

  • G.R. No. 11371 August 1, 1916 - UNITED STATES v. CECILIA MEMORACION

    034 Phil 633

  • G.R. No. 11497 August 1, 1916 - UNITED STATES v. LORENZO BLANZA

    034 Phil 639

  • G.R. No. 11597 August 1, 1916 - UNITED STATES v. DARIO PADILLA

    034 Phil 641

  • G.R. No. 11634 August 1, 1916 - UNITED STATES v. BARAMBANGAN

    034 Phil 645

  • G.R. No. 8452 August 2, 1916 - DEAN C.WORCESTER v. MARTIN OCAMPO

    034 Phil 646

  • G.R. No. 11389 August 2, 1916 - UNITED STATES v. JUAN SELLANO

    034 Phil 655

  • G.R. No. 11425 August 2, 1916 - UNITED STATES v. NGAN PING

    034 Phil 660

  • G.R. Nos. 10114 & 10137 August 3, 1916 - MELECIO MONTINOLA v. JOSE G. MONTALVO ET AL.

    034 Phil 662

  • G.R. No. 11050 August 7, 1916 - UNITED STATES v. LIM SOON

    034 Phil 668

  • G.R. No. 11159 August 7, 1916 - UNITED STATES v. MANUEL B. ASENSI

    034 Phil 671

  • G.R. No. 11420 August 7, 1916 - UNITED STATES v. WAN YANG

    034 Phil 679

  • G.R. No. 9957 August 8, 1916 - PERFECTO DE LA VEGA ET AL. v. TOMAS BALLILOS (or BALIELOS)

    034 Phil 683

  • G.R. No. 11477 August 8, 1916 - UNITED STATES v. TORIBIIO ANDAYA

    034 Phil 690

  • G.R. No. 11507 August 8, 1916 - UNITED STATES v. SEVERO DE LOS REYES

    034 Phil 693

  • G.R. No. 11510 August 8, 1916 - UNITED STATES v. BAHATAN

    034 Phil 695

  • G.R. No. 10712 August 10, 1916 - ANSELMO FERRAZZINI v. CARLOS GSELL

    034 Phil 697

  • G.R. No. 11566 August 10, 1916 - UNITED STATES v. MARCELO JOSE

    034 Phil 715

  • G.R. No. 11565 August 11, 1916 - UNITED STATES v. MARCELO JOSE

    034 Phil 723

  • G.R. No. 11162 August 12, 1916 - UNITED STATES v. F. LULING

    034 Phil 725

  • G.R. No. 11530 August 12, 1916 - UNITED STATES v. JUAN PONS

    034 Phil 729

  • G.R. No. 10100 August 15, 1916 - GALO ABRENICA v. MANUEL GONDA

    034 Phil 739

  • G.R. No. 11165 August 15, 1916 - UNITED STATES v. MANUEL B. ASENSI

    034 Phil 750

  • G.R. No. 11338 August 15, 1916 - UNITED STATES v. TAN OCO

    034 Phil 772

  • G.R. No. 11480 August 17, 1916 - UNITED STATES v. ROBERTO PANGILION

    034 Phil 786

  • G.R. No. 10374 August 18, 1916 - PIO MERCADO v. MARIA TAN-LINGCO

    034 Phil 793

  • G.R. No. 10891 August 18, 1916 - UNITED STATES v. EUGENIO KILAYKO

    034 Phil 796

  • G.R. No. 11711 August 18, 1916 - MANUEL CEMBRANO CHAN GUANCO v. INSULAR COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS

    034 Phil 802

  • G.R. No. 10988 August 19, 1916 - ROQUE SAMSON v. BRAULIO GARCIA

    034 Phil 805

  • G.R. No. 11488 August 19, 1916 - UNITED STATES v. LICERIO CASTEN

    034 Phil 808

  • G.R. No. 11653 August 19, 1916 - UNITED STATES v. GENOVEVA AQUINO

    034 Phil 813

  • G.R. No. 12096 August 22, 1916 - EMILIO DE CASTRO v. FERNANDO SALAS

    034 Phil 818

  • G.R. No. 11401 August 23, 1916 - UNITED STATES v. GREGORIO CRISTOBAL ET AL.

    034 Phil 825

  • G.R. No. 11427 August 23, 1916 - VY LIONG LIN v. INSULAR COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS

    034 Phil 832

  • G.R. No. 11505 August 25, 1916 - UNITED STATES v. SATAOA BUNGAOIL

    034 Phil 835

  • G.R. No. 11737 August 25, 1916 - UNITED STATES v. MARCELO JOSE ET AL.

    034 Phil 840

  • G.R. No. 11739 August 25, 1916 - CESAR MERCADER v. ADOLPH WISLIZENUS

    034 Phil 846

  • G.R. No. 11986 August 25, 1916 - MANUEL ORIA Y GONZALEZ v. RICHARD CAMPBELL

    034 Phil 850

  • G.R. No. 11071 August 26, 1916 - S. CHASE DE KRAFFT v. APOLINAR VELEZ

    034 Phil 854

  • G.R. No. 10868 August 28, 1916 - LEOCADIO JOAQUIN v. O. MITSUMINE

    034 Phil 858

  • G.R. No. 11267 August 31, 1916 - SEE CHIAT SEE HUAN v. INSULAR COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS

    034 Phil 865

  • G.R. No. 11562 August 31, 1916 - UNITED STATES v. SIMON LAZARO

    034 Phil 871

  • G.R. No. 11772 August 31, 1916 - UNITED STATES v. GAN LIAN PO

    034 Phil 880

  •  





     
     

    G.R. No. 11497  August 1, 1916 - UNITED STATES v. LORENZO BLANZA<br /><br />034 Phil 639

     
    PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

    SECOND DIVISION

    [G.R. No. 11497. August 1, 1916. ]

    THE UNITED STATES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. LORENZO BLANZA, SIXTO BLANZA and MARCOS BLANZA, Defendants-Appellants.

    Luciano de la Rosa for Appellants.

    Attorney-General Avanceña for Appellee.

    SYLLABUS


    1. CRIMINAL LAW; EVIDENCE; PRESUMPTION OF INNOCENCE. — A defendant in a criminal action is presumed to be innocent until the contrary is proved; and in case of a reasonable doubt that his guilt has been shown, he is entitled to an acquittal.

    2. HOMICIDE; SUFFICIENCY OF PROOF. — Facts of this case examined and held to be sufficient to sustain a conviction.


    D E C I S I O N


    MORELAND, J. :


    In this action Lorenzo Blanza, Sixto Blanza, and Marcos Blanza were charged with having on the 3d day of October, 1915, in the Province of Ilocos Sur, with premeditation and treachery, murdered Telesforo Almazan by striking and stabbing him with bolos. They were convicted of homicide and sentenced to fourteen years eight months and one day of reclusion temporal, to the accessories provided by article 59 of the Penal Code, to an indemnity and to pay the costs. In imposing the penalty the trial court gave them the benefits of article 11 of the Penal Code, reducing the penalty accordingly. They appealed.

    The guilt of the accused is not denied on this appeal, the only error assigned by counsel for the appellants being that "the court erred in not taking into consideration in sentencing the accused their ignorance and lack of instruction."cralaw virtua1aw library

    Counsel for appellants is in error in assuming that the trial court did not take into consideration the lack of instruction of the accused. The court found that the crime was committed with the aggravating circumstance of superior force, and that finding would have made it necessary to place the sentence in its maximum degree. The court, however, sentenced the accused to reclusion temporal in its medium degree, having compensated the aggravating circumstance with the extenuating circumstance provided in article 11 of the Penal Code, namely, the lack of instruction of the accused and the density of their ignorance, the court saying, referring to the aggravating circumstance is offset by the extenuating circumstance of race taken in conjunction with the lack of instruction of the accused."cralaw virtua1aw library

    The guilt of the accused is affirmatively proved beyond question by the evidence of the prosecution. The daughter of the deceased, Isidra Almazan, 17 years of age, saw the homicide committed, recognized the persons who committed it, and identified them in court. She arrived on the scene after the attack had been made but while still in progress. She had heard her mother’s cry for help and ran to ascertain the trouble and found the accused in the act of murdering her father. She asserted that her father was unarmed and that his only means of defense was his bare hands and arms. Maria Blaza, wife of the deceased, testified that she was in the house cooking; that, finishing the cooking, she went to call her husband to the midday meal when she found him down on the ground surrounded by the three accused; that he got up and began to walk but had hardly turned his back on the accused when they attacked him with their bolos; that all three used them on her husband; that he was unarmed and defended himself simply with his bare hands and arms; that he fell under the blows of the accused but rose again and staggered on still pursued by the accused who continued to strike and stab him until he fell for the last time. This witness testified that the motive for the crime was the fact that the accused had, prior to the commission of the crime here prosecuted, but on the same day, carried away the wall of the deceased’s house without his consent and that he later filed a complaint against them for their act. The hearing was set for the day following the killing. On cross-examination the witness testified that she did not go to the help of her husband for the reason that the accused, on seeing her approach, cried to her to leave or they would kill her also.

    The evidence establishes the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt.

    The judgment appealed from is affirmed, with costs against the appellants. So ordered.

    Torres, Johnson, Trent, and Araullo, JJ., concur.

    G.R. No. 11497  August 1, 1916 - UNITED STATES v. LORENZO BLANZA<br /><br />034 Phil 639


    Back to Home | Back to Main

     

    QUICK SEARCH

    cralaw

       

    cralaw



     
      Copyright © ChanRobles Publishing Company Disclaimer | E-mail Restrictions
    ChanRobles™ Virtual Law Library | chanrobles.com™
     
    RED