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
 

   
March-1916 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. 10649 March 1, 1916 - BENITO AFRICA v. KURT W. GRONKE

    034 Phil 50

  • G.R. No. 10838 March 1, 1916 - ALFONSA CARLOS ET AL. v. MLA. ELECTRIC RAILROAD & LIGHT COMPANY

    034 Phil 55

  • G.R. No. 11148 March 1, 1916 - LIM BUN SU v. INSULAR COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS

    034 Phil 62

  • G.R. No. 10563 March 2, 1916 - UNITED STATES v. ANTONIO BONIFACIO

    034 Phil 65

  • G.R. No. 11262 March 2, 1916 - UNITED STATES v. GREGORIO T. GIMENEZ

    034 Phil 74

  • G.R. No. 7676 March 3, 1916 - JOSE LINO LUNA v. ESTEBAN ARCENAS

    034 Phil 80

  • G.R. No. 10265 March 3, 1916 - EUTIQUIANO CUYUGAN v. ISIDORO SANTOS

    034 Phil 100

  • G.R. No. 10918 March 4, 1916 - WILLIAM FRESSEL ET AL. v. MARIANO UY CHACO SONS & COMPANY

    034 Phil 122

  • G.R. No. 10971 March 4, 1916 - BEAUMONT & TENNEY v. BERNARD HERSTEIN

    034 Phil 127

  • G.R. No. 11216 March 6, 1916 - COMPAÑIA GENERAL DE TABACOS DE FILIPINAS v. BOARD OF PUBLIC UTILITY COMMISSIONERS

    034 Phil 136

  • G.R. No. 8473 March 7, 1916 - SANTIAGO YASON v. JULIO MAGSAKAY

    034 Phil 143

  • G.R. No. 10437 March 7, 1916 - JESUSA LAUREANO v. EUGENIO KILAYCO

    034 Phil 148

  • G.R. No. 10729 March 7, 1916 - UY PO v. INSULAR COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS

    034 Phil 153

  • G.R. No. 10793 March 17, 1916 - GOV’T. OF THE PHIL. ISLANDS v. JUDGE OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE OF ILOILO

    034 Phil 157

  • G.R. No. 11196 March 8, 1916 - UNITED STATES v. EUSTAQUIO YUMUL

    034 Phil 169

  • G.R. No. 11321 March 8, 1916 - UNITED STATES v. SY BUN KUE

    034 Phil 176

  • G.R. No. 10051 March 9, 1916 - ERLANGER & GALINGER v. SWEDISH EAST ASIATIC CO.

    034 Phil 178

  • G.R. No. 11115 March 10, 1916 - UNITED STATES v. SILVESTRE YU TUICO

    034 Phil 209

  • G.R. No. 10297 March 11, 1916 - AGAPITO BONZON v. STANDARD OIL COMPANY OF NEW YORK ET AL.

    034 Phil 211

  • G.R. No. 8135 March 13, 1916 - FRED J. LEGARE ET AL. v. ANTONIA CUERQUES

    034 Phil 221

  • G.R. No. 10449 March 13, 1916 - UNITED STATES v. ACLEMANDOS BLEIBEL

    034 Phil 227

  • G.R. No. 8092 March 14, 1916 - RUFINA BONDAD ET AL. v. VENANCIO BONDAD ET AL.

    034 Phil 232

  • G.R. No. 10578 March 14, 1916 - PACIFIC COMMERCIAL COMPANY v. MAURICIA SOTTO

    034 Phil 237

  • G.R. No. 11000 March 14, 1916 - UNITED STATES v. VALERIO MENDIETA

    034 Phil 242

  • G.R. No. 9497 March 15, 1916 - SIMONA GALICIA v. TEODORA NAVARRO

    034 Phil 245

  • G.R. No. 11467 March 15, 1916 - NG HIAN v. INSULAR COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS

    034 Phil 248

  • G.R. No. 10462 March 16, 1916 - ANDREA DUMASUG v. FELIX MODELO

    034 Phil 252

  • G.R. No. 9164 March 17, 1916 - UNITED STATES v. VY BO TEC

    034 Phil 260

  • G.R. No. 10354 March 17, 1916 - FELIPE DORADO v. AGRIPINO VIRIÑA

    034 Phil 264

  • G.R. No. 10718 March 17, 1916 - United States v. Ramon FERRER

    034 Phil 277

  • G.R. No. 11464 March 17, 1916 - VICTOR BIUNAS v. BENITO MORA

    034 Phil 282

  • G.R. No. 8954 March 21, 1916 - DOROTEA CABANG v. MARTIN DELFINADO

    034 Phil 291

  • G.R. No. 9340 March 21, 1916 - MARGARITO PENALOSA LO INTONG v. ISIDORA JAMITO ET AL.

    034 Phil 303

  • G.R. No. 10889 March 21, 1916 - UNITED STATES v. VALERIO MARTINEZ

    034 Phil 305

  • G.R. No. 11098 March 21, 1916 - CO PAIN v. INSULAR COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS

    034 Phil 310

  • G.R. No. 11154 March 21, 1916 - E. MERRITT v. GOVERNMENT OF THE PHIL. ISLANDS

    034 Phil 311

  • G.R. No. 8979 March 22, 1916 - ADRIANO PANLILIO v. PROVICIAL BOARD OF PAMPANGA ET AL.

    034 Phil 323

  • G.R. No. 10978 March 22, 1916 - SIXTO MANLAGNIT v. ALFONSO SANCHEZ DY PUICO

    034 Phil 325

  • G.R. No. 11315 March 22, 1916 - DIONISION CHANCO v. CARLOS IMPERIAL

    034 Phil 329

  • G.R. No. 8941 March 23, 1916 - GUILLERMO VELOSO v. LORENZO BECERRA

    034 Phil 334

  • G.R. No. 9984 March 23, 1916 - PETRONA JAVIER v. LAZARO OSMEÑA

    034 Phil 336

  • G.R. No. 10769 March 23, 1916 - RAYMUNDO MELLIZA v. F. W. TOWLE

    034 Phil 345

  • G.R. No. 11119 March 23, 1916 - JUANA RIVERA v. RICHARD CAMPBELL

    034 Phil 348

  • G.R. No. 8642 March 24, 1916 - STANDARD OIL COMPANY OF NEW YORK v. ANTONIO BABASA ET AL.

    034 Phil 354

  • G.R. Nos. 8765 & 10920 March 24, 1916 - PEDRO DIMAGIBA v. ANSELMO DIMAGIBA

    034 Phil 357

  • G.R. No. 8806 March 24, 1916 - ALEJANDRO BALDEMOR v. EUSEBIA MALANGYAON

    034 Phil 367

  • G.R. No. 9919 March 24, 1916 - ELISA TORRES DE VILLANUEVA v. STANDARD OIL COMPANY OF NEW YORD ET AL.

    034 Phil 370

  • G.R. No. 9974 March 24, 1916 - CANG YUI v. HENRY GARDENER

    034 Phil 376

  • G.R. No. 10560 March 24, 1916 - IN RE: Tan Po Pic v. JUAN L. JAVIER

    034 Phil 382

  • G.R. No. 10624 March 24, 1916 - MANILA RAILROAD COMPANY v. INSULAR COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS

    034 Phil 385

  • G.R. No. 10663 March 24, 1916 - JOSEPH E. FOX v. MANILA ELECTRIC RAILROAD AND LIGHT COMPANY

    034 Phil 389

  • G.R. No. 11384 March 24, 1916 - ANTONIO GUEVARA v. INSULAR COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS

    034 Phil 394

  • G.R. No. 10045 March 25, 1916 - PHIL. RAILWAY COMPANY v. WILLIAM T. NOLTING

    034 Phil 401

  • G.R. No. 10777 March 25, 1916 - ALEJANDRA v. COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE OF PANGASINAN

    034 Phil 404

  • G.R. No. 11157 March 25, 1916 - POLICARPIO RAMIREZ v. FRANCISCO DE OROZCO

    034 Phil 412

  • G.R. No. 10510 March 27, 1916 - LEONCIO ZARATE v. DIRECTOR OF LANDS ET AL.

    034 Phil 416

  • G.R. No. 10580 March 27, 1916 - TEODORO DE LOS REYES v. MAXIMINO PATERNO

    034 Phil 420

  • G.R. No. 11607 March 27, 1916 - PHIL. SUGAR ESTATES DEV. CO. (LTD.) v. ARMANDO CAMPS Y CAMPS

    034 Phil 426

  • G.R. No. 9845 March 28, 1916 - J. C. RUYMANN v. DIRECTOR OF LANDS

    034 Phil 428

  • G.R. No. 10054 March 28, 1916 - UNITED STATES v. ATANASIO CLARAVALL

    034 Phil 441

  • G.R. No. 10264 March 28, 1916 - CHOA TEK HEE v. PHIL. PUBLISHING CO.

    034 Phil 447

  • G.R. No. 10595 March 28, 1916 - TEODORO KALAMBAKAL v. VICENTE PAMATMAT ET AL.

    034 Phil 465

  • G.R. No. 10810 March 28, 1916 - MUNICIPALITY OF AGOO v. GABRIEL TAVORA

    034 Phil 475

  • G.R. No. 10902 March 28, 1916 - SERAPIA DE JESUS v. PABLO PALMA

    034 Phil 483

  • G.R. No. 11156 March 28, 1916 - IN RE: DU TEC CHUAN. M. G. VELOSO

    034 Phil 488

  • G.R. No. 11363 March 28, 1916 - BERNARDO MOLDEN v. INSULAR COLLETOR OF CUSTOMS

    034 Phil 493

  • G.R. No. 11366 March 28, 1916 - INSULAR COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS v. GOERGE R. HARVEY

    034 Phil 503

  • G.R. No. 9550 March 29, 1916 - BACHRACH GARAGE v. HOTCHKISS & CO.

    034 Phil 506

  • G.R. No. 10019 March 29, 1916 - THOMAS A. WALLACE v. PUJALTE & CO.

    034 Phil 511

  • G.R. No. 10202 March 29, 1916 - GOV’T. OF THE PHIL. ISLANDS Ex Rel. MUN. OF CARDONA v. MUN. OF BINANGONAN ET AL.

    034 Phil 518

  • G.R. No. 10474 March 29, 1916 - FRANCISCO OSORIO Y GARCIA v. SOLEDAD OSORIO

    034 Phil 522

  • G.R. No. 10493 March 29, 1916 - FREDERICK L. COHEN v. BENGUET COMMERCIAL CO. (Ltd.)

    034 Phil 526

  • G.R. No. 10751 March 29, 1916 - GOV’T. OF THE PHIL. ISLANDS v. MARIA CABALLERO Y APARICI

    034 Phil 540

  • G.R. No. 10778 March 29, 1916 - MUNICIPALITY OF DUMANGAS v. ROMAN CATHOLIC BISHOP OF JARO

    034 Phil 541

  • G.R. No. 11008 March 29, 1916 - MARIANO REAL ET AL. v. CESAREO MALLARI

    034 Phil 547

  • G.R. No. 11068 March 29, 1916 - FERNANDEZ HERMANOS v. HAROLD M. PITT

    034 Phil 549

  • G.R. No. 11274 March 29, 1916 - RAFAELA DALMACIO v. ALBERTO BARRETTO

    034 Phil 554

  • G.R. No. 11585 March 29, 1916 - PABLO PERLAS v. PEDRO CONCEPCION

    034 Phil 559

  • G.R. No. 8697 March 30, 1916 - M. GOLDSTEIN v. ALIJANDRO ROCES ET AL.

    034 Phil 562

  • G.R. No. 8988 March 30, 1916 - HARTFORD BEAUMONT v. MAURO PRIETO, ET AL.

    041 Phil 670

  •  




     
     

    G.R. No. 10718  March 17, 1916 - United States v. Ramon FERRER<br /><br />034 Phil 277

     
    PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

    FIRST DIVISION

    [G.R. No. 10718. March 17, 1916. ]

    The United States, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Ramon FERRER, Defendant-Appellant.

    Irineo Javier for Appellant.

    Attorney-General Avanceña for Appellee.

    SYLLABUS


    CRIMINAL LAW; COMPLAINANT TWO CAUSES OF ACTION. — A complaint which contains two cause of action s defective; however, when the complaint describes two acts which combined constitute but one crime, the complaint is not necessarily defective. If the two or more acts are so disconnected as to constitute two or more separate and distinct offenses or crimes, then, of course, it would not be error to charge each of said acts in different complaints; but where the acts are so related as to constitute, in fact, but one offense, then the complaint will not be defective if the crime is described by relating the two acts in the description of the one offense.


    D E C I S I O N


    JOHNSON, J. :


    On the 13th of June, 1914, the prosecuting attorney of the Province of Ilocos Norte presented a complaint in the Court of First Instance of said province, in which the defendant was charge with the crime of estafa. The complaint alleged:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

    "That the said Ramon Ferrer, in or about the months of February and march of 1914, was purchasing agent for Colony NO. 2, Abulog, Cagayan, Philippine Islands, and in such capacity, was employed by the Government of the Philippine Islands.

    "That the said Ramon Ferrer, in the aforesaid capacity and on the sixteenth day of the said month of March of 1914 and in the municipality of Vintar, Ilocos Norte, Philippine Islands, bought for the Government of the Philippine Islands, with the money of the said Government, two carabaos from Eugenio de la Cruz for the sum of one hundred pesos (P100).

    "That the said Ramon Ferrer, at said time and place and in said capacity, willfully, illegally and criminally did defraud by means of deceit the Government of the Philippine Islands of the sum of sixty pesos (P60) inasmuch as, to the injury of said Government, he (Ramon Ferrer) did appropriate the said amount belonging to the said Government of the Philippine Islands, and to that end, did falsely sign approve, and affirm by his official oath the two vouchers Provincial Form No. 21 (a), signed by him, as being the value of the carabaos belonging to Eugenio de la Cruz, eighty-five pesos (P85) for one and seventy-five pesos (P75) for the other. The said accused received these said amounts from the municipal treasurer of Vintar, Ilocos Norte, P.I., as a deputy of the said provincial treasure, of said province, delivering and paying to the vendor aforesaid only the amounts which had been agreed upon as the purchase price and specified above, appropriating the said amount of sixty pesos (P60), as has been alleged, which remained as surplus.

    "An act performed in violation of the law."cralaw virtua1aw library

    Upon said complaint the defendant was duly arrested and arraigned; he pleaded not guilty, was tried, found guilty, and sentenced by the Honorable J. R. . Burgett to be imprisoned for a period of four months and one day of arresto mayor; to pay the Insular Government as indemnity the sum of P60, being the amount which the said defendant fraudulently collected from the said Insular Government and in case of insolvency to suffer subsidiary imprisonment in accordance with the provisions of the law, together with the subsidiary penalty provided for by article 61 of the Penal Code. From that sentence the defendant appealed to this Court.

    Before the plea of not guilty was presented in the lower court, the defendant interposed a defendant interposed a demurrer in which he alleged that the complaint had not been drawn in accordance with the requirements of the law, and that it accused the defendant of more than one crime. After hearing the arguments of the respective parties the said demurrer was over ruled and disallowed. The record does not show that the defendant made any exception to the ruling of the lower court on the demurrer. Notwithstanding the fact however that no exception was taken to the ruling of the lower court, he now assigns as his first assignment of error the fact that the lower court committed an error in not sustaining said demurrer. While it is true that the complaint charges that the defendant falsified two documents, in the commission of the crime charged against him, said falsification were the means by which he committed the crime of estafa. The falsification of the vouchers in question was the means simply by which the defendant committed the crime of estafa. When two or more acts combine in the commission of one crime, the complaint is not necessarily defective because it contains a description of two acts. If the acts are so disconnected as to constitute separate and distinct offenses or crimes, then, of course, it would not be error to charge each of said acts in different complaints but where the acts are so related as to constitute in fact but one offense, then a complaint will not be defective if the crime is described by relating the two acts, in the description of the one offense. In the present case the two documents falsified, which resulted in the alleged crime of estafa, were executed at the same time and between the same parties. The complaint is not defective upon the ground that it charges two crimes, simply because it relates all of the facts that took place in the commission of one crime. The lower court, in our judgment, committed no error in overruling the demurrer.

    The other assignments of error present questions of fact only. The lower court, after hearing the evidence, after seeing the witnesses and hearing their declarations, made the following finding of facts:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

    "During February and March, 1914, the defendant, Ramon Ferrer, was in the employ of the Insular Government of the Philippine Islands as purchasing agent for the Abulog Colony in Cagayan Province, of the Philippine Islands. On March 16th, 1914, the defendant, Ramon Ferrer, in Vintar, Ilocos Norte, Philippine Islands, bought for the Insular Government, as its agent, two carabaos from Eugenio de la Cruz, agreeing to pay therefor P50 each. He then made out and approved, over his own signature, the necessary voucher for each of said carabaos (see Exhibits A and B), but inserted in each of said voucher a different price from the true price which he actually agreed to pay Eugenio de la Cruz; inserting in one of said vouchers (Exhibit A as the selling price of one carabao P85, and in the other voucher (Exhibit B) P75, as the selling price of the other carabao. Then, after having De la Cruz place his thumb mark to the blank receipt printed at the bottom of each voucher, he presented said vouchers to the municipal treasurer for payment, and the treasurer did actually pay him P160, in that the same might be delivered to the said De la Cruz, that amount being the amount called for by both of said vouchers. The defendant then later, probably on the next day, did actually pay over and deliver only P100 of said Ibay having been appointed, in the presence and within the hearing of the defendant, by Eugenio de la Cruz, to collect from the defendant, for him, the selling price of the two carabaos in question; said P100 being the sum which the said Ferrer agreed in the first instance to pay to the said Eugenio de la Cruz for the two carabaos in question. The balance of the P160 from the municipal treasurer by the defendant (P60) was never delivered by the defendant to the said Eugenio de la Cruz, or to the said Ibay for him, but was retained by the defendant in his own possession, and has never been returned or accounted for, in any way, to the said Insular Government."cralaw virtua1aw library

    In addition to the foregoing resume of the facts, the lower court makes a further analysis of the credibility of the witnesses.

    An examination of the evidence adduced during the trial of the cause, for the prosecution and for the defense, shows an irreconcilable conflict. Taking into consideration the credibility of the witnesses, as outlined by the court a quo in his decision, in relation with the fact that he saw and heard them and thereby was able to judge of their credibility, we are not inclined to accept the declaration of the witnesses whose veracity he questioned. Eugenio de la Cruz swore positively that he sold the two carabaos to the defendant for the sum of P100. Mariano C. Ibay swore positively that he had been authorized to receive the money from the defendant for the said carabaos; that the defendant paid to him, for the said Eugenio de la Cruz, the sum of P100 only. The vouchers show that the price of the two carabaos was P160. The proof shows that the defendant collected from the municipal treasurer the sum of P160. There seems to be no reason why Eugenio de la Cruz of Mariano C. Ibay should declare falsely in relation to the matter under investigation. Neither does the record contain any reason why the defendant did not permit Eugenio de la Cruz to collect the amount due for his carabaos from the municipal treasurer himself. It certainly was quite out of the ordinary for the defendant to collect the money from the municipal treasurer and to pay it over to the vendor of the carabaos. If the defendant had desired to keep his acts above suspicion, it would have been easy, and not only that, it would have been the natural course to have pursued, to have permitted Eugenio de la Cruz to have collected the money from the municipal treasurer.

    In addition to the foregoing there are many facts and circumstances in the record which point to the credibility of the witnesses for the prosecution and to the guilt of the defendant. We are satisfied that the proof adduced during the trial of the cause shows, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the defendant is guilty of the crime charged in the complaint, in the manner and form charged therein. Therefore the sentence of the lower court is hereby affirmed with costs. So ordered.

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

    G.R. No. 10718  March 17, 1916 - United States v. Ramon FERRER<br /><br />034 Phil 277




    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