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. 10889   March 21, 1916 - UNITED STATES v. VALERIO MARTINEZ<br /><br />034 Phil 305

     
    PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

    SECOND DIVISION

    [G.R. No. 10889. March 21, 1916. ]

    THE UNITED STATES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. VALERIO MARTINEZ, Defendant-Appellant.

    Eusebio Orense for Appellant.

    Attorney-General Avanceña for Appellee.

    SYLLABUS


    CRIMINAL LAW; PLEA OF INSANITY; BURDEN OF PROOF. — Held: Under the rule that all men are sane until the contrary is proved, that, when the defendant in a criminal action interposes the defense of insanity, the burden of establishing that fact rests upon him.


    D E C I S I O N


    JOHNSON, J. :


    This defendant was charged with the crime of assassination. A complaint was presented in the court of the justice of the peace of the municipality of Balayan, Province of Batangas, on the 12th of October, 1914. A preliminary examination was held by said justice of the peace, at the close of which he found that there was reasonable ground to believe that the defendant was guilty of the crime charged, and held him for trial in the Court of First Instance of said province.

    On the 20th of October, 1914, the prosecuting attorney of the Province of Batangas presented a complaint in the Court of First Instance, charging the defendant with the crime of assassination. The complaint alleged that:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

    "On or about October 12th of the present year, in the municipality of Balayan, Batangas, of the jurisdiction of this Court of First Instance, Paula Martinez, while bathing on the azotea of her house, was maliciously, criminally, and treacherously assaulted by her son-in-law the accused, when she was not expecting to be assaulted, the said accused inflicting upon her two wounds, which caused her death three hours after their infliction; an act committed in violation of law."cralaw virtua1aw library

    Upon said complaint the defendant was duly arraigned and pleaded not guilty. The cause was set down for trial and the prosecution and defense presented their proof. At the close of the trial the Honorable Vicente Jocson, judge, reached the conclusion that the defendant was guilty of the crime of assassination and rendered the following sentence:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

    "The charge preferred by the prosecution is for the crime of murder, but in view of all the circumstances, and considering that the assault made by Valerio Martinez upon his mother-in-law immediately after he was rebuked by her, cannot be deemed to have been premeditated (though it does, apparently, constitute treachery, inasmuch as the assaulted woman was old and unarmed; however this circumstance can be offset by the mitigating one of passion and obfuscation caused by his mother-in-law’s rebuke), the crime must, for all these circumstances, be classified as simple homicide, comprised within and punished by article 404 of the Penal Code.

    "Therefore, this court finds Valerio Martinez guilty of the crime of homicide and, consequently, sentences him to twelve years and one day of reclusion temporal and to the accessory penalties; to pay to the heirs of Paula Martinez the sum of P1,00, as an indemnity, and to pay the costs of this cause. So ordered."cralaw virtua1aw library

    From that sentence the defendant appealed, and in this court made the following assignments of error:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

    "First. The lower court erred in finding that the counsel for the accused based his client’s defense on the theory that the accused was suffering from mental derangement at the time he committed the crime charged against him.

    "Second. The trial court likewise erred in holding that the facts testified to by the witnesses of the accused were more or less invented by them, and that, even though they were true, they would not prove the accused’s imbecility.

    "Third. The trial court also erred in not granting any probatory value to the evidence regarding the reputation the accused possesses of being an imbecile.

    "Fourth. The trial court also erred in finding that the witness Mariano Ramos is father of the accused.

    "Fifth. The trial court also erred in allowing no probatory value to the testimony of Drs. Vivencio Ramos, Gregorio Limjoco, and Jose Lozada.

    "Sixth. The trial court also erred in admitting the dying declaration of Paula Martinez, with respect to the condition of the accused’s mental faculties.

    "Seventh. The trial court likewise erred in holding that the accused voted in the general elections held in Balayan, and that he had contracted with the municipality to furnish it sand.

    "Eighth. The trial court likewise erred in not finding the accused to be exempt from criminal liability."cralaw virtua1aw library

    With reference to said assignments of error, it may be noted that the first, second, third, firth, and eighth relate to but one question, to wit: The mental condition or capacity of the defendant at the time the crime was committed. Upon the question of the mental capacity of the defendant many witnesses were examined during the trial of the cause. Practically all of such testimony related to a time prior to the commission of the crime charged. Very mush of the testimony simply shows that the defendant was degenerate. Very little of it tended to show that he did not at all times know exactly what he was doing. Several doctors were examined who had made a slight examination and observation of the mental condition of the defendant. No witness was examined who qualified as an expert in mental diseases.

    After a careful analysis of the evidence and the conclusions of the lower court, who saw the defendant and heard the witnesses presented by the prosecution, as well as those for the defense, was are persuaded that the mental condition of the defendant, while it is sufficient perhaps to modify the penalty, was not such as to relieve him from all criminal responsibility. The lower court who saw the defendant during the entire trial of the cause, states that he made a careful observation of him for the purpose of discovering, if possible, his real mental condition, and that he observed nothing that would indicate that his mental condition was such as to relieve him from criminal responsibility. While the defendant, on many occasions before the commission of the crime which he admits he committed, did many things that would indicate that he was not of sound mind, such acts tend to show, however, that he was of a depraved mental character, rather than a man of unsound mind. The burden was upon him, having alleged mental unsoundness, to establish that fact. The law presumes that all men are sane, until the contrary is shown. We have decided that when a defendant in a criminal case interposes the defense of mental incapacity, the burden of establishing that fact rests upon him. (U.S. v. Hontiveros Carmona, 18 Phil. Rep., 62.) In our opinion, the evidence adduced during the trial of the cause does not show that the mental condition of the defendant, at the time he committed the crime, was such as to relieve him from criminal responsibility.

    In view of the foregoing conclusions, we deem it unnecessary to discuss the fouth, sixth, and seventh assignments or error. Without admitting that the record shows that the court committed the errors alleged in said assignments of error, we are of the opinion that they, in no way, could result in a reversal or modification of the sentence and judgment of the lower court.

    The court a quo found that there existed the qualifying circumstance of treachery, but compensated that qualifying circumstance with the mitigating circumstance of obcecacion, and qualified the crime, by reason of said compensating, mitigation circumstance, as the crime of homicide. In our opinion the evidence shows clearly that the defendant is guilty of the crime of assassination, with the qualifying circumstance of alevosia, and that the character of the crime should not be modified as indicated by the lower court. The court a quo imposed the penalty of 12 years and 1 day of imprisonment of reclusion temporal. Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances surrounding the commission of the crime, in relation with the mental condition of the defendant, in our opinion the sentence imposed by the lower court should be modified with the modification that the imprisonment should be cadena temporal instead of reclusion temporal. With that modification, the judgment and sentence of the lower court should be affirmed, with costs. So ordered.

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

    Moreland, J., concurs in the result.

    G.R. No. 10889   March 21, 1916 - UNITED STATES v. VALERIO MARTINEZ<br /><br />034 Phil 305




    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