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
 

   
February-1916 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. 10173 February 1, 1916 - MARIANO VELASCO & Co. v. GOCHUICO CO.

    033 Phil 363

  • G.R. No. 10935 February 1, 1916 - UNITED STATES v. CASIMIRO E. VELASQUEZ

    033 Phil 368

  • G.R. No. 9184 February 2, 1916 - MACONDRAY & CO. v. GEORGE C. SELLNER

    033 Phil 370

  • G.R. No. 10129 February 2, 1916 - CLARA TAMBUNTING v. EDILBERTO SANTOS

    033 Phil 383

  • G.R. No. 10744 February 2, 1916 - ANTONIO RAYMUNDO v. AMBROSIO CARPIO

    033 Phil 395

  • G.R. No. 10841 February 2, 1916 - UNITED STATES v. JUAN DE LOS SANTOS

    033 Phil 397

  • G.R. No. 11086 February 2, 1916 - MARTINIANO VALDEZCO SY CHIOK v. INSULAR COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS

    033 Phil 406

  • G.R. No. 11399 February 2, 1916 - REAL MONASTERIO DE SANTA CLARA v. PANFILO VILLAMAR

    033 Phil 411

  • G.R. No. 10121 February 3, 1916 - MAURICIA SOTO v. DOMINGA ONG

    033 Phil 414

  • G.R. No. 10107 February 4, 1916 - CLARA CEREZO v. ATLANTIC GULF & PACIFIC COMPANY

    033 Phil 425

  • G.R. No. 8769 February 5, 1916 - SMITH, BELL & CO. v. MARIANO MARONILLA

    041 Phil 557

  • G.R. No. 9802 February 5, 1916 - TEC BI & CO. v. THE CHARTERED BANK OF INDIA

    041 Phil 596

  • G.R. No. 10345 February 5, 1916 - KUENZLE & STREIFF (LTD.) v. JUAN VILLANUEVA

    041 Phil 611

  • G.R. No. 10078 February 5, 1916 - UNITED STATES v. MARCELINO DACAIMAT

    033 Phil 447

  • G.R. No. 9038 February 7, 1916 - PEDRO MAGAYANO v. TOMAS GAPUZAN

    033 Phil 453

  • G.R. No. 10280 February 7, 1916 - ENGRACIO CORONEL v. CENON ONA

    033 Phil 456

  • G.R. No. 8166 February 8, 1916 - JORGE DOMALAGAN v. CARLOS BOLIFER

    033 Phil 471

  • G.R. No. 10548 February 9, 1916 - UNITED STATES v. SATURNO DE IRO

    033 Phil 475

  • G.R. No. 10104 February 10, 1916 - ROMANA CORTES v. FLORENCIO G. OLIVA

    033 Phil 480

  • G.R. No. 10251 February 10, 1916 - COMPAÑIA GRAL. DE TABACOS DE FILIPINAS v. ALHAMBRA CIGAR & CIGARETTE MANUFACTURING CO.

    033 Phil 485

  • G.R. No. 10619 February 10, 1916 - COMPANIA GRAL. DE TABACOS DE FILIPINAS v. ALHAMBRA CIGAR & CIGARETTE MANUFACTURING CO.

    033 Phil 503

  • G.R. No. 9596 February 11, 1916 - MARCOS MENDOZA v. FRANCISCO DE LEON

    033 Phil 508

  • G.R. No. 11048 February 11, 1916 - LIM PUE v. INSULAR COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS

    033 Phil 519

  • G.R. No. 11081 February 11, 1916 - UNITED STATES v. MORO MOHAMAD

    033 Phil 524

  • G.R. No. 9977 February 12, 1916 - DOROTEO KARAGDAG v. FILOMENA BARADO

    033 Phil 529

  • G.R. No. 11065 February 12, 1916 - UNITED STATES v. LOPE K. SANTOS

    033 Phil 533

  • G.R. No. 9966 February 14, 1916 - TRINIDAD DE AYALA v. ANTONIO M. BARRETTO

    033 Phil 538

  • G.R. No. 10427 February 14, 1916 - UNITED STATES v. SOY CHUY

    033 Phil 545

  • G.R. No. 10666 February 14, 1916 - UNITED STATES v. QUE SIANG

    033 Phil 548

  • G.R. No. 10951 February 14, 1916 - K.S. YOUNG v. JAMES J. RAFFERTY

    033 Phil 556

  • G.R. No. 8914 February 15, 1916 - UNITED STATES v. RAYMUNDO ZAPANTA

    033 Phil 567

  • G.R. No. 9277 February 15, 1916 - ANDRES CALON y MARTIN v. BALBINO ENRIQUEZ

    033 Phil 572

  • G.R. No. 9822 February 15, 1916 - BENIGNO SOLIS v. PEDRO DE GUZMAN

    033 Phil 574

  • G.R. No. 10722 February 18, 1916 - DOLORES A IGNACIO v. FELISA MARTINEZ

    033 Phil 576

  • G.R. No. 10516 February 19, 1916 - UNITED STATES v. AGAPITO SOLAÑA

    033 Phil 582

  • G.R. No. 10323 February 21, 1916 - PETRA DE CASTRO v. JUSTICE OF THE PEACE OF BOCAUE

    033 Phil 595

  • G.R. No. 9204 February 24, 1916 - LAZARO PASCUAL v. FELIPE PASCUAL

    033 Phil 603

  • G.R. No. 10531 February 25, 1916 - JULIANA MELIZA v. PABLO ARANETA

    033 Phil 606

  • G.R. No. 10672 October 26, 1915

    UNITED STATES v. CARMEN IBAÑEZ

    033 Phil 611

  • G.R. No. 8271 February 26, 1916 - PETRONILA MARQUEZ v. FLORENTINA SACAY

    034 Phil 1

  • G.R. No. 10934 February 26, 1916 - PP. AGUSTINOS RECOLETOS v. GALO LICHAUCO ET AL.

    034 Phil 5

  • G.R. No. 10675 February 28, 1916 - UNITED STATES v. YAP TIAN JONG

    034 Phil 10

  • G.R. No. 9665 February 29, 1916 - IN RE: AMBROSIO RABALO v. GABINA RABALO

    034 Phil 14

  • G.R. No. 10244 February 29, 1916 - SANTIAGO CRUZADO v. ESTEFANIA BUSTOS

    034 Phil 17

  • G.R. No. 11006 February 29, 1916 - UNITED STATES v. MATEO BALBIN

    034 Phil 38

  • G.R. Nos. 11055 & 11056 February 29, 1916 - UNITED STATES v. ANGEL ANG

    034 Phil 44

  •  





     
     

    G.R. No. 8914   February 15, 1916 - UNITED STATES v. RAYMUNDO ZAPANTA<br /><br />033 Phil 567

     
    PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

    FIRST DIVISION

    [G.R. No. 8914. February 15, 1916. ]

    THE UNITED STATES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. RAYMUNDO ZAPANTA and ANTONINA LAMPANO, Defendants-Appellants.

    O’Brien & De Witt for Appellants.

    Solicitor-General Harvey for Appellee.

    SYLLABUS


    1. CRIMINAL LAW; APPEAL; REHEARING. — A judgment of affirmance entered by direction of this court, revoked upon a motion for a rehearing submitted and granted within the time prescribed by rule, the court having become convinced on the rehearing that the order appealed from was erroneously entered in the court below.

    2. ID.; ID.; REVERSAL OF ORDER OF RECOMMITMENT. — An order entered under the provisions of Act No. 1524, recommiting to confinement a convict conditionally pardoned, for the breach of the condition on which the pardon was granted, will not be sustained when it appears that no competent evidence was submitted in the court below as to the conditions upon which the alleged pardon was granted, and further that the accused made timely objection to the introduction of incompetent evidence, erroneously admitted into the record, as to the grant of a conditional pardon and the conditions upon which it was granted.

    3. ID.; EVIDENCE; CARBON COPY OF PARDON. — An uncertified and unsigned document purporting to be a carbon copy of a pardon granted by the Chief Executive is not competent evidence as to the grant of such pardon or the conditions upon which it was granted, even though it bears on its face the seal of the Executive Bureau, and the unsigned words in typewriting, "Copy furnished the clerk of court" or "Copy furnished the Chief of Constabulary."


    D E C I S I O N


    CARSON, J. :


    Upon motion of the appellants, this case was set down for a rehearing which was limited to a consideration of the question as to whether there is any competent evidence in the record as to the conditions of the alleged conditional pardon, for the alleged breach of which the appellants were committed to Bilibid Prison by the court below for the unexpired portion of the original sentence pronounce upon them.

    It is urged, and we think with reason, that the order appealed from should be reversed, if it appears from a review of the whole record that the only evidence offered in the court below which purports to set forth the terms and conditions of the alleged pardon was incompetent and inadmissible, and that its admission into the record was duly objected to by counsel for the appellants.

    The proceedings were had under the provisions of Act No. 1524, which empowers the proper Court of First Instance to order the recommitment and confinement of any person conditionally pardoned, if the court finds that one or more of the conditions of a conditional pardon have been violated by the person so pardoned. Manifestly no order of recommitment and confinement under Act No. 1524 should be sustained, in the absence of evidence in the record as to the terms and conditions of the alleged pardon, since no finding of a breach of the conditions of a pardon can properly made without proof as to the nature and character if the terms and the conditions of the pardon which it is alleged to have been violated.

    After a thorough review of the whole record, we find not a scintilla of evidence as to the issuance of the alleged conditional pardon, or as to the conditions upon which it was granted, other than a typewritten document, which was offered in evidence by the prosecution as a copy of an original pardon supposed to have been executed by the Governor-General of the Philippines Islands. This document was admitted in evidence over the vigorous objection of counsel for the defendants, who insisted that it was not competent evidence of the issuance of the alleged pardon, or of the terms and conditions of the original instrument of which it purported to be a copy.

    We are of the opinion not only that this document was erroneously admitted into the record over the objection of counsel, but that it is wholly incompetent evidence as to the issuance of the original pardon of which it purports to be a copy, or as to the conditions of the original pardon which the trial court found had been violated by these appellants. Purporting merely to be a copy of an original act by the Chief Executive it bears no certificate as to its authenticity.

    Sections 299, 313, and 318 of the Code of Civil Procedure are in part as follows:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

    "Sec. 299. . . . copy of a public writing, duly certified to be a true copy, thereof, is admissible evidence in like cases and in like effect as the original writing."cralaw virtua1aw library

    "Sec. 313. Official documents may be proved, as follows:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

    1. Acts of the Chief Executive of the Philippine Islands, by the record of his office, certified by his secretary under the seal thereof, if there be one; . . . ."cralaw virtua1aw library

    "Sec. 318. What certificate of copy of writing must state. — Whenever a copy of a writing is certified for the purpose of evidence, the certificate must state, in substance, that the copy is a correct copy of the original, or a specific part thereof, as the case may be. The certificate must be under the official seal of the certifying officer, if there be any, or if he be the clerk of a court having a seal, under the seal of such court." (Cal. 1923; 7 Phil. Rep., 250.) 1

    We need not stop to examine the reasons which induced the lawmaker to require the certification of copies of writings before permitting them to be used as evidence, and to prescribe in detail the contents and form of the required certificate. The door to fraud and mistake which would be opened to by the admission in evidence of uncertified copies of original writings, sufficiently explains this very salutary rule of evidence; and although we cite the rule as set forth in the Code of Civil Procedure, it cannot be doubted that a no less stringent rule should be enforced with reference to the admission in evidence of copies of writings in criminal cases.

    Absolutely the only evidence in the record as to the issuance of the alleged conditional pardon, and as to the conditions thereof which it is alleged were violated by these appellants is a document purporting to be a copy of an original writing executed by the Governor-General of the Philippines, but not certified as a correct copy of the original by the secretary of the Governor-General or by any other person, which was admitted into the record over the objection of counsel for the appellants. we conclude therefore that the order entered in the court below, recommiting these appellants to Bilibid Prison, based as it is on a finding that they had violated the conditions of a pardon, without competent evidence in the record as to what those conditions were must be reversed.

    It may be admitted that there is nothing in the record to indicate that the provincial fiscal had any reason to doubt that the document submitted by him in the court below was a correct copy of an original pardon issued by the Governor-General. Indeed we are inclined to believe that it is in fact a correct carbon copy of such a pardon. It bears on one corner the unsigned typewritten words: "Copy furnished the clerk of the court;" and also the impress of the seal of the Executive Secretary, from which we infer that it may have been, and probably was prepared by the Executive Secretary and forwarded to the clerk of the Court of first Instance of Pampanga for his information. But it is lacking in the certificate as to its correctness as a copy of an original pardon issued by the Governor-General, without which it is wholly incompetent and insufficient as proof of the issuance, the contents and the conditions of such a pardon.

    The burden of proof of the charge that these appellants had violated the conditions of a pardon granted them rested on the prosecuting officer, and in the absence of proof of the fact the court below could not properly order their confinement in Bilibid, nor can this court lawfully affirm such an order when its attention has been directed to the lack of such proof in the record.

    When this case was originally submitted on appeal, we were fully satisfied, from an examination of the evidence of record, as to the guilt of the appellants of the specific acts of misconduct with which they were charged in the court below, and our attention was more especially directed to the consideration of some extremely nice questions as to the jurisdiction of the court to entertain and decide the appeal. In the discussion of the broad issues thus submitted for adjudication we overlooked the apparently technical, but, as it develops on closer examination, the very substantial contention of counsel as to the lack of competent evidence touching the issuance of the alleged conditional pardon, and the conditions upon which it is alleged it was granted. This cannot be attributed to any failure on the part of counsel to raise the issue in his brief, or to neglect of the ponente to invite the attention of the court to the contention of counsel in this regard, but rather to the fact that the point was lost sight of in the discussion of other apparently more important issues involved in the case. However, this may be, a majority of the court united in an opinion directing the entry of a judgment affirming the order entered in the court below, and it was not until our attention was again directed to the omission of competent evidence from the record which is discussed in this opinion, that we became convinced of the substantial nature of the alleged error in the proceedings had in the court below.

    The motion for a rehearing having been submitted and granted within the time prescribed by rule, and we having become convinced that the order appealed from was erroneously entered in the court below, it becomes our duty to revoke the judgment heretofore entered by our direction affirming the order entered in the court below, and at the same time direct that ten days hereafter judgment be entered reversing the order entered in the court below, and directing the dismissal of these proceedings against the appellants and the exoneration of their bail bonds, with the costs of both instances de officio. So ordered.

    Arellano, C.J., Torres, and Trent, JJ., concur.

    Separate Opinions


    MORELAND, J., concurring:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

    As the question of right of appeal has already been settled by this court and therefore eliminated from the controversy at bar, I concur in the foregoing decision.

    Endnotes:



    1. U. S. v. Orosa, 7 Phil. Rep., 247.

    G.R. No. 8914   February 15, 1916 - UNITED STATES v. RAYMUNDO ZAPANTA<br /><br />033 Phil 567


    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