Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1936 > January 1936 Decisions > G.R. No. 43037 January 29, 1936 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. ISLANDS v. PEDRO SALCEDO

062 Phil 812:




PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

EN BANC

[G.R. No. 43037. January 9, 1936.]

THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. PEDRO SALCEDO, Defendant-Appellant.

Mariano Sta. Romana for Appellant.

Solicitor-General Hilado for Appellee.

SYLLABUS


1. HOMICIDE; EVIDENCE; LACK OF MOTIVE. — While the friendly relations existing between the defendant and the deceased prior to the commission of the crime are a circumstance which should not be overlooked, yet it is not decisive in determining the weight of evidence. Evil designs are sometimes concealed under the cloak of affection and friendship.

2. EVIDENCE; PRESUMPTION AND BURDEN OF PROOF. — In the original complaint R. S. and M. N. were, together with the appellant, charged with the commission of the crime here involved. At the preliminary investigation, M. N. imputed to appellant the whole responsibility of the commission of the crime charged; while appellant expressed in open court his unwillingness to testify against his coaccused. Held: While no presumption can be indulged against the defendant by reason of his failure to testify at the preliminary investigation n which his coaccused impute to him full and exclusive responsibility for the commission of the crime of homicide, yet his attitude in that respect may be taken into consideration in determining the weight of his subsequent testimony.


D E C I S I O N


ABAD SANTOS, J.:


Appellant was charged with the crime of murder in the Court of First Instance of Nueva Ecija and, after due trial, he was found guilty only of homicide and sentenced to not less than eight years and one day of prision mayor and not more than fifteen years of reclusion temporal, to indemnify the heirs of the deceased, Benigno de Guzman, in the sum of P1,000, and to pay the costs.

The facts which led to the filing of the information against the appellant are stated in the opinion of the court below, and, to avoid repetition, we shall refer to them here only in so far as they are important to the determination of this appeal.

The question presented is somewhat simplified because the corpus delicti was established by undisputed evidence. There is no question that Benigno de Guzman was feloniously slain. It is likewise undisputed that the only persons who could have committed the homicide were the appellant and Raymundo Santiago and his wife Maria Nicban. These were the only persons who were with the deceased at the time he met his death early in the morning of October 26, 1934 in the municipality of Santa Rosa, Province of Nueva Ecija. But, while Raymundo Santiago and his wife testified that the unlawful deed was perpetrated by the appellant, the latter by his own testimony tried to fasten the guilt on the two spouses. The lower court, after a careful consideration of the evidence, came to the conclusion that the guilt of the appellant was proved beyond a reasonable doubt.

In support of this appeal, counsel for the appellant vigorously contends that the lower court erred in convicting the appellant, because the weight of the evidence points to the guilty of Raymundo Santiago and his wife, rather than that of the appellant. As the issue involved rests essentially on the credibility of the opposition witnesses, we may well rest our decision on the settled doctrine of this court that as the trial judge had opportunity to see the witnesses and to observe the manner in which they gave their testimony, he was in a better position to pass upon their credibility, and his findings of fact ought not to be disturbed in the absence of strong reasons that would warrant such a course.

Counsel for the defense maintains that there is no sufficient evidence to establish the motive of the accused to commit the crime charged against him. He lays great stress on that part of the evidence which seems to indicate that prior to the commission of the crime friendly relations existed between the appellant and the deceased. While this circumstance should not be overlooked, it is not decisive in determining the weight of evidence. Evil designs are sometimes concealed under the cloak of affection and friendship. The betrayal of the Great Master by one of his trusted disciples was stamped with a kiss, and so runs the old adage: "Faithful are the wounds of a friend, but the kisses of an enemy are hateful."cralaw virtua1aw library

Upon a careful scrutiny of the evidence, we find that the version given by Raymundo Santiago and Maria Nicban as to the manner in which Benigno de Guzman was slain, is more consistent with the established facts, than that of the appellant. Santiago and his wife testified, for instance, that the appellant hit the deceased on the occipital region with a stick; that the deceased fell as a result of the blow; that as he raised his left arm appellant struck it; and that the latter again hit the deceased on the face, and around the neck. This coincides with the testimony of Dr. Roman Rustia as to the marks of violence found on the body of the deceased.

This case has an aspect which is significant. The record shows that in the original complaint filed by Lieutenant R. Alejandro, of the Constabulary, Raymundo Santiago and Maria Nicban were, together with the appellant, charged with having murdered Benigno de Guzman. At the preliminary investigation, however, Maria Nicban testified substantially to the same facts to which she testified at the trial of this case as to the manner in which Benigno de Guzman was slain; and the appellant "having expressed in open court his unwillingness to testify against these two accused (Maria Nicban and Raymundo Santiago)," the justice of the peace of Santa Rosa, Province of Nueva Ecija, dismissed the case as to Nicban and Santiago, but remanded it to the Court of First Instance as to the herein appellant. While no presumption can be indulged against the appellant by reason of his failure to testify at the preliminary investigation, yet, under the peculiar circumstances of this case, his attitude in that respect may be taken into consideration in determining the weight of his subsequent testimony.

The Solicitor-General, in his brief, has show a commendable effort to view the evidence presented in this case with absolute impartiality, free from any bias or prejudice against the appellant. And while he expresses doubt as to the appellant’s guilty, he admits that "the records do not reveal such glaring errors on the part of the trial court as would justify us in recommending the reversal of its findings of fact."cralaw virtua1aw library

The judgment appealed from is affirmed with costs against the appellant. So ordered.

Avanceña, C.J., Hull, Vickers and Recto, 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






January-1936 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. 42276 January 2, 1936 - VALERIANO REYES ET AL. v. MATIAS RODRIGUEZ ET AL.

    062 Phil 771

  • G.R. No. 43430 January 7, 1936 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. ISLANDS v. FILEMON D. MALABANAN

    062 Phil 786

  • G.R. No. 41915 January 8, 1936 - LA URBANA v. SIMEON BERNARDO ET AL.

    062 Phil 790

  • G.R. No. 43037 January 29, 1936 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. ISLANDS v. PEDRO SALCEDO

    062 Phil 812

  • G.R. No. 41941 January 9, 1936 - JUAN BENGZON v. THE PROVINCE OF PANGASINAN

    062 Phil 816

  • G.R. No. 44149 January 9, 1936 - SIMEON VERGARA v. PAMPANGA BUS COMPANY

    062 Phil 820

  • G.R. No. 43448 January 11, 1936 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. ISLANDS v. FILOMENO DEL ROSARIO

    062 Phil 824

  • G.R. No. 43499 January 11, 1936 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL ISLANDS v. ISIDORO SANARES Y CAERNE

    062 Phil 825

  • G.R. No. 44370 January 11, 1936 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. ISLANDS v. CO CHO , ET AL.

    062 Phil 828

  • G.R. No. 43083 January 13, 1936 - JOSE C. BUCOY v. TORREJON

    062 Phil 831

  • G.R. No. 42199 January 14, 1936 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. ISLANDS v. JOSE ABAD LOPEZ

    062 Phil 835

  • G.R. No. 44657 January 14, 1936 - BUENAVENTURA ALANDY, ET AL. v. EDUARDO GUTIERREZ DAVID

    062 Phil 841

  • G.R. No. 42258 January 15, 1936 - IN RE: VICTORIANO PAYAD v. AQUILINA TOLENTINO

    062 Phil 848

  • G.R. No. 44096 January 15, 1936 - PASAY TRANSPORTATION CO. v. TANAY TRANSIT CO. (TEODORO R. YANGCO)

    062 Phil 850

  • G.R. No. 44663 January 15, 1936 - MARCIANO ROMASANTA ET AL. v. SERVILLIANO PLATON

    062 Phil 855

  • G.R. No. 41947 January 16, 1936 - IN RE: VIVENCIO CUYUGAN v. FAUSTINA BARON and GUILLERMO BARON

    062 Phil 859

  • G.R. No. 43012 January 16, 1936 - VENANCIO QUEBLAR v. LEONARDO GARDUÑO, ET AL.

    062 Phil 879

  • G.R. No. 43357 January 16, 1936 - M. CHUA KAY & CO. v. WIDOW AND HEIRS OF OH TIONG KENG

    062 Phil 883

  • G.R. No. 44513 January 16, 1936 - L. H. HENNING v. WESTERN EQUIPMENT AND SUPPLY CO.

    062 Phil 886

  • G.R. No. 42780 January 17, 1936 - MANILA GAS CORPORATION v. COLLECTOR OF INTERNAL REVENUE

    062 Phil 895

  • G.R. No. 42960 January 17, 1936 - BONIFACIO FERNANDEZ v. NICOLAS DAYAN

    062 Phil 909

  • G.R. No. 42821 January 18, 1936 - JUAN BENGZON v. SECRETARY OF JUSTICE and INSULAR AUDITOR

    062 Phil 912

  • G.R. No. 44658 January 24, 1936 - EMILIA DIVINO v. CEFERINO HILARIO

    062 Phil 926

  • G.R. No. 43187 January 29, 1936 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. ISLANDS v. ANSELMO CALALO

    062 Phil 932

  • G.R. No. 42898 January 30, 1936 - COSME BIAGTAN v. CONCEPCION VIUDA DE OLLER

    062 Phil 933

  • G.R. No. 43406 January 30, 1936 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. ISLANDS v. MELECIO TORRES ET AL.

    062 Phil 942

  • G.R. No. 42300 January 31, 1936 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. ISLANDS v. AMADEO CORRAL

    062 Phil 945