Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1930 > February 1930 Decisions > G.R. No. 32116 February 20, 1930 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. FRANCISCO JULIADA, ET AL.

054 Phil 485:




PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

EN BANC

[G.R. No. 32116. February 20, 1930.]

THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. FRANCISCO JULIADA, ET AL., Defendants. FRANCISCO JULIADA and SIMPLICIO LUNA, Appellants.

Modesto Reyes, for Appellants.

Attorney-General Jaranilla, for Appellee.

SYLLABUS


1. CRIMINAL PROCEDURE; DISMISSAL OF INFORMATION; NON-PRESENTATION OF OFFENDED PARTY AS WITNESS. — Failure to present the offended party as a witness does not constitute sufficient ground for dismissal. The testimony of the offended party is not essential to the conviction of the defendant. The appearance of the offended person as a witness in a criminal case, depends upon the prosecuting officer, who is given by law discretion to use him as witness or not.


D E C I S I O N


ROMUALDEZ, J.:


The penalty imposed by the trial court in this case for the crime of robbery is, three years, eight months and one day of presidio correccional upon Simplicio Luna, and ten years of presidio correccional (mayor) upon Francisco Juliada, for his recidivism. The court further sentenced them to pay the costs, and ordered that the money and wallet presented in evidence be returned to the offended party.

The defendants allege on appeal through counsel de officio that their motion for dismissal filed after the prosecution had closed its evidence should have been granted; that it was error to hold that the aforesaid wallet and the contents thereof belong to the alleged offended party; and that they should be acquitted.

Failure to present the offended party as a witness does not constitute sufficient ground for dismissal. The testimony of the offended party is not essential to convict the defendant. Whether the offended person is to appear or not as a witness in a criminal case, depends upon the prosecuting officer, who is given by law discretion to use him as witness or not. The fact that said officer in the exercise of his discretion does not present the offended party as a witness, does not detract from the efficacy of the proceeding, and does not constitute ground for dismissal thereof. The sufficiency or insufficiency of the evidence in a criminal case does not depend upon whether the offended party took the witness stand or not.

In the instant case, the evidence that the wallet belongs to the offended party is found in the testimony of witness Dungao to the effect that said offended party so stated in the presence of the defendants, and this testimony was not objected to by counsel when Dungao gave it. Aside from this, the circumstance that the wallet may belong to the offended party or not, is not essential to the appellants’ rights, in view of their failure to allege and certainly to prove that it belongs to both or to one of them; and it appearing from the record that when defendant Simplicio Luna was about to be searched by Lieutenant Guido, he threw the wallet into the gutter, such act precludes the idea that the wallet belongs to him and that he had been keeping it in his pocket.

The assignments of error are unfounded.

It has been proved that both defendants are recidivists, and, as the Attorney-General correctly observes, the circumstance serves to aggravate their liability in view of the absence of any mitigating circumstance to offset the same. Therefore, the penalty fixed for case 5, article 503 of the Penal Code, must be applied in the maximum degree. It further appears that appellant Francisco Juliada is not only a recidivist, but also an habitual criminal, having been heretofore convicted of theft seven times by final judgment; for this reason he has incurred the additional penalty provided in paragraph (d), section 1, Act No. 3397, as amended by Act No. 3586.

Wherefore, the judgment appealed from is affirmed in so far as the appellants are found guilty of the crime charged, and modified as to the penalties; each of said appellants is hereby sentenced to six years, ten months and one day presidio mayor, with the accessory penalties of law, and the defendant Francisco Juliada is further sentenced to suffer an additional penalty of twenty-one years’ imprisonment, with costs against the appellants. So ordered.

Johnson, Malcolm, Villamor, Ostrand, Johns and Villa-Real, JJ., concur.




Back to Home | Back to Main




















chanrobles.com





ChanRobles On-Line Bar Review

ChanRobles Internet Bar Review : www.chanroblesbar.com

ChanRobles MCLE On-line

ChanRobles Lawnet Inc. - ChanRobles MCLE On-line : www.chanroblesmcleonline.com






February-1930 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. 30882 February 1, 1930 - TAN CHUN TIC v. WEST COAST LIFE INSURANCE CO., ET AL.

    054 Phil 361

  • G.R. No. 32560 February 1, 1930 - JUAN TONG, ET AL. v. F. SANTAMARIA, ET AL.

    054 Phil 371

  • G.R. No. 31581 February 3, 1930 - ENRIQUE M. PASNO v. FORTUNATA RAVINA, ET AL.

    054 Phil 378

  • G.R. No. 31629 February 3, 1930 - MANILA ELECTRIC COMPANY v. PASAY TRANSPORTATION CO., INC.

    054 Phil 386

  • G.R. No. 31354 February 5, 1930 - DIRECTOR OF LANDS v. FELIX ABELARDO, ET AL.

    054 Phil 387

  • G.R. No. 31684 February 5, 1930 - PHILIPPINE NATIONAL BANK v. MANUEL PAEZ, ET AL.

    054 Phil 393

  • G.R. No. 32423 February 7, 1930 - MARIA S. TUASON, ET AL. v. PEDRO CONCEPCION, ET AL.

    054 Phil 408

  • G.R. No. 31745 February 12, 1930 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JULIO V. PACANA

    054 Phil 424

  • G.R. No. 31155 February 10, 1930 - HIJOS DE I. DE LA RAMA v. SALVADOR BETIA

    054 Phil 991

  • G.R. No. 31703 February 13, 1930 - CARMEN G. DE PEREZ v. MARIANO GARCHITORENA, ET AL.

    054 Phil 431

  • G.R. No. 31662 February 14, 1930 - KOCK WING v. PHILIPPINE RAILWAY CO.

    054 Phil 438

  • G.R. No. 31672 February 14, 1930 - EUGEN MARSCHALL v. CARL ANTHOLTZ, ET AL.

    054 Phil 448

  • G.R. No. 31875 February 14, 1930 - DIRECTOR OF LANDS v. EUGENIO ABALLA, ET AL.

    054 Phil 455

  • G.R. No. 31816 February 15, 1930 - RECAREDO F. PANDO v. ANTONIO GIMENEZ, ET AL.

    054 Phil 459

  • G.R. No. 32075 February 17, 1930 - YU CHI AY, ET AL. v. INSULAR COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS

    054 Phil 469

  • G.R. No. 32160 February 17, 1930 - RI TONG, ET AL. v. INSULAR COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS

    054 Phil 471

  • G.R. No. 32294 February 17, 1930 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. FLORENTINO Q. EISMA

    054 Phil 476

  • G.R. No. 31732 February 19, 1930 - CARMEN QUINTO v. MARGARITA MORATA

    054 Phil 481

  • G.R. No. 32116 February 20, 1930 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. FRANCISCO JULIADA, ET AL.

    054 Phil 485

  • G.R. No. 31842 February 25, 1930 - MARCELO GAJITON, ET AL. v. RAYMUNDO M. MERIS

    054 Phil 487

  • G.R. No. 31984 February 25, 1930 - PRATS & COMPANY v. PHOENIX INSURANCE COMPANY

    054 Phil 491

  • G.R. No. 32051 February 25, 1930 - JOSE A. VALLARTA v. ESPERANZA ALIWALAS, ET AL.

    054 Phil 499

  • G.R. No. 32039 February 26, 1930 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ESTEBAN CARANDANG, ET AL.

    054 Phil 503

  • G.R. No. 31884 February 27, 1930 - MANILA BUILDING & LOAN ASSOCIATION v. B. A. GREEN

    054 Phil 507

  • G.R. No. 31865 February 28, 1930 - MARIANO B. ARROYO v. MARIA CORAZON YU DE SANE, ET AL.

    054 Phil 511

  • G.R. Nos. 32020-32022 February 28, 1930 - AGAPITO ABUTON v. ALEJANDRO PALER

    054 Phil 519