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. 11262  March 2, 1916 - UNITED STATES v. GREGORIO T. GIMENEZ<br /><br />034 Phil 74

     
    PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

    FIRST DIVISION

    [G.R. No. 11262. March 2, 1916. ]

    THE UNITED STATES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. GREGORIO T. GIMENEZ, Defendant-Appellant.

    M. Escueta for Appellant.

    Attorney-General Avancena for Appellee.

    SYLLABUS


    1. CRIMINAL LAW; PLEAS; BY WHOM ENTERED. — If the charge against the accused in a criminal case is for a felony, the plea of guilty can only be put in by the accused himself in open court. Such a plea entered by other person is a nullity and no conviction can rest thereon.

    2. ID.; ID.; CHANGE OF PLEA. — A defendant in a criminal case has a right to withdraw his plea of guilty or not guilty and to interpose another, even after the trial has commenced.

    3. ID.; APPEAL; RETRIAL UPON THE RECORD BY THE SUPREME COURT. — The Supreme Court may retry a criminal case upon the record, determining both questions of law and fact and may modify or reverse the judgment accordingly. But if the case be one where a fatal error was committed during the progress of the trial and where the trial was not completed on account of such error, the record will not permit of a retrial on the merits.

    4. ID.; ID.; ID.; FORMER JEOPARDY. — Where the accused is found guilty of a felony and upon appeal the record will not permit of a retrial of the case upon the merits, the judgment will be set aside and a new trial ordered. Such new trial does not amount to placing the accused in jeopardy the second time for the same offense within the meaning of the double jeopardy provisions in the Philippine Bill.


    D E C I S I O N


    TRENT, J. :


    This is an appeal from a judgment condemning the defendant, Gregorio T. Gimenez, to six years and one day of prison mayor, to the accessory penalties provided by law, and to the payment of the costs of the cause for the crime of bigamy (illegal marriage).

    Upon arraignment, the defendant entered a plead of "not guilty" and the case proceeded to trial. After presenting three witnesses for the prosecution, the trial was suspended until the following day, when, upon the reconvening of the court, counsel for the defendant made this statement:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

    "LIONGSON. Since conferring with the defendant he wishes to withdraw his plea to the complaint of ’not guilty’ and to substitute therefor that of ’guilty.’

    "The COURT. Enter in the record that the attorney for the defense request to withdraw the plea of ’not guilty’ entered by the defendant, and the substitution therefor of the plea of ’guilty.’"

    Forthwith, the court rendered the following judgment:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

    "Gregorio Gimenez having pleaded guilty to the crime of illegal marriage, provided for and penalized by article 471 of the Penal Code, the court sentences him to six years and one day of prision mayor, with the accessories of article 61, and to the payment of the costs."cralaw virtua1aw library

    Although the language used by counsel and the court, above quoted, may not definitely show that the plea of not guilty was actually withdrawn and the plea of guilty substituted therefor, yet all admit that this was, in fact, done by counsel, notwithstanding the charge is for a felony.

    The principal question raised on this appeal relates to the legality of the conviction of the defendant on a plea of guilty entered by his counsel.

    The statutory law touching the question under consideration may be briefly states as follows: If the charge against the accused in a criminal case is for a felony, he must be personally present at the arraignment and pronouncement of judgment if convicted; but if for a misdemeanor, he may appear by counsel and the judgment may be pronounced in his absence. (General Orders No. 58, secs. 16 and 41.) The arraignment shall consist in reading the complaint or information to the defendant and asking him whether he pleads guilty as charged. (Id., sec. 18.) "A plea of guilty can be put in only by the defendant himself in open court." (Id., sec. 25.)

    It is well settled in this jurisdiction that a defendant in a criminal case, although the charge be a felony, has a right to withdraw his plea of guilty or not guilty and to interpose another even after the trial has commenced. (U. S. v. Sakay, 8 Phil. Rep., 255.) That the defendant in the instant case could have personally withdrawn his plea of not guilty and entered a plea of guilty there can be no doubt.

    From the above mentioned provisions of General Orders No. 58 it will be seen that there is a clear distinction, with reference to pleas, between misdemeanors and felonies. In the former the accused need not appear personally at all, but if the crime charged be the latter, "A plea of guilty can be put in only by the defendant himself in open court." Stronger and clearer language could not have been used. Only, as thus used, is clearly restrictive and excludes, as clearly as language can, the idea that someone else can enter the plea of guilty for an accused person charged with a felony. Only, coupled with the words "the defendant himself," has the effect of absolutely prohibiting any other person from entering such a plea. If a plea of guilty be entered by another person, where the charge is that of a felony, although such person may be the counsel for the accused, it is a nullity and no conviction can rest thereon.

    Section 1018 of the Penal Code of California provides that:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

    "A plea of guilty can be put in by the defendant himself only in open court, unless upon indictment or information against a corporation, in which case it may be put in by counsel."cralaw virtua1aw library

    In the note to section 1017, wherein section 1018 is cited, it is said: The requirement of the law that defendant must plead personally cannot be cured by the fact that he was brought into court and tried without objection. (People v. Monaghan, 102 Cal., 229.) In all cases amounting to a felony the defendant must plead in person. (People v. Corbett, 28 Cal., 328.) A plea by his attorney for him is a nullity. (McQuillen v. State, 8 Smedes & M., 587; Younger v. State, 2 W. Va., 579; 98 Am. Dec., 791.) In cases of misdemeanor the defendant may plead in person or by attorney. (People v. Ebner, 23 Cal., 158.)

    We, therefore, conclude that the judgment appealed form must be set aside and a new trial awarded to the defendant, unless it is necessary under the law to discharge or acquit him, as claimed by his counsel, on the ground that he cannot be again put upon his trial for the same offense.

    At the time the plea of guilty was substituted for that of not guilty, legal jeopardy, within the meaning of that portion of the fifth section of the Philippine Bill providing that "no person for the same offense shall be twice put in jeopardy of punishment," had attached, if this provision covers the case under consideration wherein we have just annulled the judgment at the request of the accused. (U.S. v. Ballentine, 4 Phil. Rep., 672, 673.) And the defendant can avail himself of the once-in-jeopardy clause as a bar to a new trial of the offense for which he was convicted, provided he did not waive his right to this plea in seeking and obtaining a reversal of the judgment.

    In determining whether legal jeopardy had attached and, if so, whether the defendant waived the rights and benefits resulting therefrom by reason of the reversal of the judgment upon his own appeal, it is necessary to note the appellate power and jurisdiction of this court in hearing and determining criminal cases. Appeals in such cases are perfected by the defendant by filing with the clerk of the Court of First Instance, or with such court, a notice stating the appeal and by serving a copy thereof upon the adverse party. This operates as a supersedeas and requires the clerk or judge to transmit to the Clerk of the Supreme Court the complete record in the case, together with the notice of the appeal. When the case is regularly submitted to this Court on appeal, if it be one originating in the Court of First Instance, this Court proceeds to review the record and in the event that of any reason it cannot affirm the judgment entered in the court below, it may then retry the case upon the record, determining both questions of law and fact, and on the findings of fact thus made, modify or reverse the judgment accordingly, thereby entering a new judgment convicting or acquitting the appellant as the case may be, or it may reopen the trial, as provided in section 42 of General Orders No. 58, and grant a new hearing. The new hearing shall take place in the court of original jurisdiction. This Court may also order a new trial in case the record or any material part of it has been lost or destroyed through no fault on the part of the officers of the Government. In the cases just mentioned, where new trials are thus granted, the defendant may be retried upon the same charge without violating the once-in-jeopardy clause above quoted. (U.S. v. Sunga and Bautista, 11 Phil. Rep., 601; U.S. v. Laguna, 17 Phil. Rep., 532.)

    The reviewing courts, both State and Federal, in the United States determine, as a general rule, only questions of law, where the appellant is convicted of a felony, and if a reversable error is committed, the case is returned for a new trial. Some of the appellate courts in that country will also grant new trials if the verdict of guilty has no evidence to support it or is flagrantly contrary to the evidence.

    The state courts, however, are not in harmony upon the question as to the limits of new trials thus granted or ordered. Some hold that where the accused has been acquitted in the first instance of the greater offense charged in the indictment, but convicted of the lesser offense included therein, he can be tried for the lesser offense only, while others hold that upon a new trial the whole case is open as if there had been no former trial at all.

    The courts which limit the new trial proceed upon the ground that the accused by appealing waives his constitutional protection as to double jeopardy, but such waiver goes no further than the accused himself extends if and as he asked for so much of the judgment as convicts him of guilt and does not ask for a reversal of so much of it as acquits him, he waives his privilege as to the one and keeps it as to the other. While on the other hand, the courts holding that a new trial is not so limited are of the opinion that in appealing from the judgment the accused necessarily appeals from the whole thereof, as well that which acquits as that which condemns; that the judgment is one entire thing; and that, as he brings up the whole record for review, he thereby waives the provisions of the once-in-jeopardy clause for the purpose of attempting to gain what he thinks is a greater benefit, viz., a review and reversal by the higher court of a judgment of conviction. Or in other, words, when at his own request an accused has obtained a new trial, he must take the burden with the benefit and go back for a new trial of the whole case. The latter views, as to the extent of the waiver, is supported by the Supreme Court of the United States. (Trono v. U.S., 11 Phil. Rep., 726; 199 U. S., 521.)

    In this jurisdiction we may, as we have said, retry the case upon the record and, if the record will permit, pronounce a final verdict of guilty or not guilty and render judgment accordingly, while in cases arising in the United States proper the case is returned to the lower court for final disposition, generally for a new trial. But, if the case be like the one under consideration, where a fatal error was committed during the progress of the trial and where the trial was not completed on account of such error, the record will not permit a retrial in this court upon the merits and a judgment of conviction or acquittal finally disposing of the case. Whether we take the view upon the limits of the waiver as to the once-in-jeopardy provision, as indicated in Trono v. U. S., supra, or whether we accept the view also expressed in that case by the Supreme Court of the United States to the effect that "the constitutional provision (as to double jeopardy) was really never intended to, and, properly construed, does not cover the case of a judgment under these circumstances, which has been annulled by the court at the request of the accused, and there is, therefore, no necessity of relying upon the waiver, because the correct construction of the provision does not make it applicable," the result is the same. We must follow the holding of the Supreme Court of the United States upon these questions.

    For the foregoing reasons, the judgment appealed from is set aside and the record will be returned to the Court of First Instance, whence it came, for a new trial upon the same charge. So ordered.

    Arellano, C.J., Torres. Johnson and Carson, JJ., concur.

    Moreland, J., concurs in the result.

    G.R. No. 11262  March 2, 1916 - UNITED STATES v. GREGORIO T. GIMENEZ<br /><br />034 Phil 74




    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