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
 

   
April-1939 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. 43850 April 3, 1939 - JOSE C. BUCOY v. JOHN R. MCFIE, ET AL.

    067 Phil 126

  • G.R. No. 45080 April 3, 1939 - FLORENCIA DUQUILLO v. PAZ BAYOT

    067 Phil 131

  • G.R. No. 45112 April 3, 1939 - APOLONIA GOMEZ v. LEVY HERMANOS, INC.

    067 Phil 134

  • G.R. No. 45144 April 3, 1939 - M. E. GREY v. INSULAR LUMBER COMPANY

    067 Phil 139

  • G.R. No. 45696 April 3, 1939 - PLACIDA PASCASIO, ET AL. v. BENITO GUIDO

    067 Phil 143

  • G.R. No. 45159 April 4, 1939 - GOVERNMENT OF THE PHIL. v. EMILIO MA. DE MORETA

    067 Phil 146

  • G.R. Nos. 46231-46235 April 4, 1939 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. PAULO B. GONZALEZ

    067 Phil 147

  • G.R. No. 46239 April 4, 1939 - SAN JUAN DE DIOS HOSPITAL v. ROSENDO MARCOS, ET AL.

    067 Phil 150

  • G.R. No. 46247 April 4, 1939 - SAN JUAN DE DIOS HOSPITAL v. MUNICIPAL COUNCIL OF SAN RAFAEL, ET AL.

    067 Phil 158

  • G.R. No. 45177 April 5, 1939 - JOSE MARTINEZ v. SANTOS B. PAMPOLINA

    067 Phil 167

  • G.R. No. 45193 April 6, 1939 - EMILIE ELMIRA RENEE BOUDARD, ET AL. v. STEWART EDDIE TAIT

    067 Phil 170

  • G.R. No. 46510 April 5, 1939 - ORIENT PROTECTIVE ASSURANCE ASSOCIATION v. ANTONIO RAMOS

    067 Phil 176

  • G.R. No. 45517 April 5, 1939 - TARCILA L. TRINIDAD v. ORIENT PROTECTIVE ASSURANCE ASSOCIATION

    067 Phil 181

  • G.R. No. 45738 April 6, 1939 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. MAXIMIANO CELORICO

    067 Phil 185

  • G.R. No. 45748 April 6, 1939 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. FRANCO VERA REYES

    067 Phil 187

  • G.R. No. 45955 April 5, 1939 - TEODORICA R. VIUDA DE JOSE v. JULIO VELOSO BARRUECO

    067 Phil 191

  • G.R. No. 46144 April 6, 1939 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. FRANCISCO CINCO, ET AL.

    067 Phil 196

  • G.R. No. 46409 April 5, 1939 - INSULAR MOTORS INCORPORATED v. CITY OF MANILA, ET AL.

    067 Phil 201

  • G.R. No. 46478 April 6, 1939 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. GO UG, ET AL.

    067 Phil 202

  • G.R. No. 43822 April 10, 1939 - PHILIPPINE TRUST CO. v. HONGKONG & SHANCHAI BANKING CORPORATION

    067 Phil 204

  • G.R. No. 45152 April 10, 1939 - HILARIA SIKAT v. JOHN CANSON

    067 Phil 207

  • G.R. No. 45170 April 10, 1939 - ARSENIO DE VERA, ET AL. v. CLEOTILDE GALAURAN

    067 Phil 213

  • G.R. No. 45171 April 10, 1939 - EUGENIO VERAGUTH, ET AL. v. ROSARIO MONTILLA, ET AL.

    067 Phil 215

  • G.R. No. 45192 April 10, 1939 - IN RE: VICENTE J. FRANCISCO

    067 Phil 222

  • G.R. No. 45200 April 10, 1939 - GOVERNMENT OF THE PHIL. v. APOLONIA S. ZAPANTA, ET AL.

    067 Phil 232

  • G.R. No. 45246 April 10, 1939 - CARLOS N. FRANCISCO v. PARSONS HARDWARE CO.

    067 Phil 234

  • G.R. No. 45273 April 10, 1939 - LUNETA MOTOR CO. v. FEDERICO ABAD

    067 Phil 236

  • G.R. No. 45295 April 10, 1939 - RUFO ARCENAS v. INOCENCIO DEL ROSARIO, ET AL.

    067 Phil 238

  • G.R. No. 45302 April 10, 1939 - GERVASIA ENCARNACION, ET AL. v. PROVINCIAL SHERIFF OF RIZAL, ET AL.

    067 Phil 245

  • G.R. No. 45337 April 10, 1939 - MANILA MOTOR CO. v. ANICETO MARAÑA

    067 Phil 247

  • G.R. No. 45381 April 10, 1939 - FELIX BENEDICTO v. PERFECTO ESPINO

    067 Phil 249

  • G.R. No. 45898 April 10, 1939 - JOVITA JOVEN v. MARCELO T. BONCAN, ET AL.

    067 Phil 252

  • G.R. No. 46530 April 10, 1939 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. CATALINO RABAO

    067 Phil 255

  • G.R. No. 45123 April 12, 1939 - AGRIPINO INFANTE v. MARCOS DULAY

    067 Phil 259

  • G.R. No. 45165 April 12, 1939 - GREGORIA JIMENEZ v. GEROMIMO JIMENEZ

    067 Phil 263

  • G.R. No. 45277 April 12, 1939 - TORIBIO TEODORO v. JUAN POSADAS

    067 Phil 267

  • G.R. No. 45306 April 12, 1939 - JOSUE SONCUYA v. LA URBANA

    067 Phil 271

  • G.R. No. 45365 April 12, 1939 - FULTON IRON WORKS CO. v. SIDNEY C. SCHWARZKOPF

    067 Phil 274

  • G.R. No. 45375 April 12, 1939 - COMMONWEALTH OF THE PHIL. v. GLORIA BALDELLO

    067 Phil 277

  • G.R. No. 45454 April 12, 1939 - EULALIO GARCIA v. SINFOROSA C. DAVID, ET AL.

    067 Phil 279

  • G.R. No. 45515 April 12, 1939 - TOLARAM MENGHRA v. BULCHAND ARACHAND, ET AL.

    067 Phil 286

  • G.R. No. 45742 April 12, 1939 - TIBURCIO MAMUYAC v. PEDRO ABENA

    067 Phil 289

  • G.R. No. 45752 April 12, 1939 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JUAN PERALTA, ET AL.

    067 Phil 293

  • G.R. No. 45821 April 12, 1939 - SOCONY-VACUUM CORPORATION v. LEON C. MIRAFLORES

    067 Phil 304

  • G.R. No. 45899 April 12, 1939 - RAYMUNDO VARGAS v. NIEVES TANCIOCO,, ET AL.

    067 Phil 308

  • G.R. No. 45405 April 13, 1939 - IN RE: ANTONIO FRANCO

    067 Phil 312

  • G.R. No. 45529 April 13, 1939 - VENANCIO QUEBLAR v. LEONARDO GARDUÑO

    067 Phil 316

  • G.R. No. 46428 April 13, 1939 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. IRINEO TUMLOS

    067 Phil 320

  • G.R. No. 45253 April 14, 1939 - FIDELITY AND SURETY COMPANY OF THE PHIL. v. ISABELO G. SANCHEZ, ET AL.

    067 Phil 323

  • G.R. No. 45310 April 14, 1939 - MARCOS J. ROTEA v. FRANCISCA DELUPIO

    067 Phil 330

  • G.R. No. 45400 April 14, 1939 - MARCIANA LUNASCO v. VETERANS ADMINISTRATION

    067 Phil 333

  • G.R. No. 45536 April 14, 1939 - PEDRO AMANTE v. SERAFIN P. HILADO

    067 Phil 338

  • G.R. No. 45601 April 14, 1939 - TAVERA-LUNA v. MARIANO NABLE

    067 Phil 340

  • G.R. No. 45687 April 14, 1939 - CARIDAD ESTATE OF CAVITE, INC. v. VICENTE AVILA

    067 Phil 345

  • G.R. No. 45931 April 14, 1939 - URBANO SERRANO v. VICENTE DE LA CRUZ

    067 Phil 348

  • G.R. No. 45340 April 15, 1939 - MARCELA BALLESTEROS v. VETERANS ADMINISTRATION

    067 Phil 351

  • G.R. No. 45430 April 15, 1939 - TERESA GARCIA v. LUISA GARCIA, ET AL.

    067 Phil 353

  • G.R. No. 45643 April 16, 1939 - RAYMUNDO CORDERO v. COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE OF LAGUNA, Respondents.

    067 Phil 358

  • G.R. No. 45576 April 19, 1939 - MAXIMIANO FUENTES v. JUSTICE OF THE PEACE OF PILA, LAGUNA, ET AL.

    067 Phil 364

  • G.R. No. 45248 April 18, 1939 - VICENTE REYES VILLAVICENCIO v. SANTIAGO QUINIO

    067 Phil 367

  • G.R. No. 45418 April 18, 1939 - AMBROSIO RAMOS, ET AL. v. H. A. GIBBON, ET AL.

    067 Phil 371

  • G.R. No. 45701 April 18, 1939 - TIRSO GARCIA v. TY CAMCO SOBRINO

    067 Phil 384

  • G.R. No. 45721 April 18, 1939 - MELCHOR LAMPREA v. DIRECTOR OF LANDS, ET AL.

    067 Phil 388

  • G.R. No. 45803 April 18, 1939 - VICENTA C. VDA. DE GUIDOTE v. BANK OF THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS

    067 Phil 391

  • G.R. No. 45923 Abril 18, 1939 - CHOA FUN v. EL SECRETARIO DEL TRABAJO

    067 Phil 394

  • G.R. No. 46015 April 18, 1939 - LIBERATO JIMENEZ v. INES DE CASTRO, ET AL.

    067 Phil 398

  • G.R. No. 46043 April 18, 1939 - TERESA LANDRITO, ET AL. v. RICARDO GONZALEZ, ET AL.

    067 Phil 401

  • G.R. No. 46134 April 18, 1939 - NICOLASA DE GUZMAN v. ANGELA LIMCOLIOC

    067 Phil 404

  • G.R. No. 46317 April 18, 1939 - JUSTO QUIMING v. MARIANO L. DE LA ROSA

    067 Phil 406

  • G.R. No. 45290 April 19, 1939 - GOVERNMENT OF THE PHIL. v. PAULA MERCADO

    067 Phil 409

  • G.R. No. 45126 April 19, 1939 - DIRECTOR OF LANDS v. ALBINO PANUNCIO

    067 Phil 414

  • G.R. No. 45166 April 19, 1939 - LEON C. VIARDO v. GALICANO GUTIERREZ

    067 Phil 416

  • G.R. No. 45190 April 19, 1939 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ANTONIO APAREJADO, ET AL.

    067 Phil 418

  • G.R. No. 45531 April 19, 1939 - FRED OMNAS, ET AL. v. PABLO S. RIVERA

    067 Phil 419

  • G.R. No. 46002 April 19, 1939 - SALVACION RIOSA v. STILIANOPULOS, INC.

    067 Phil 422

  • G.R. No. 45715 April 20, 1939 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. REMIGIO OLIVERIA

    067 Phil 427

  • G.R. No. 45934 April 20, 1939 - FORTUNATO DIAZ v. PEOPLE OF THE PHIL.

    067 Phil 432

  • G.R. No. 45980 April 20, 1939 - MARIA MARTINEZ v. YEK TONG LIN FIRE & MARINE INSURANCE CO.

    067 Phil 436

  • G.R. No. 45493 April 21, 1939 - GERARDO GARCIA v. ANGEL SUAREZ

    067 Phil 441

  • G.R. No. 45595 April 21, 1939 - JUAN POSADAS, ET AL. v. GO HAP, ET AL.

    067 Phil 446

  • G.R. No. 46046 April 21, 1939 - PROCOPIO GAQUIT v. DOROTEO CONUI

    067 Phil 449

  • G.R. No. 46570 April 21, 1939 - JOSE D. VILLENA v. SECRETARY OF THE INTERIOR

    067 Phil 451

  • G.R. No. 45449 April 22, 1939 - TOMAS S. OCEJO v. CONSUL GENERAL OF SPAIN

    067 Phil 475

  • G.R. No. 46330 April 22, 1939 - IRENEO ABAD SANTOS, ET AL. v. PROVINCE OF TARLAC, ET AL.

    067 Phil 480

  • G.R. No. 45413 April 24, 1939 - LA YEBANA, CO., INC. v. JULIO L. VALENZUELA, ET AL.

    067 Phil 482

  • G.R. No. 45666 April 24, 1939 - ALFREDO VALENZUELA v. PEOPLE OF THE PHIL.

    067 Phil 490

  • G.R. No. 45978 April 24, 1939 - MIGUELA ELEAZAR v. EUSEBIO ELEAZAR

    067 Phil 497

  • G.R. No. 46029 April 24, 1939 - NATIONAL LOAN AND INVESTMENT BOARD v. LUIS MENESES

    067 Phil 498

  • G.R. No. 45369 April 25, 1939 - ISABELA SUGAR CO., INC. v. ALFFREDO L. YATCO

    067 Phil 500

  • G.R. No. 45544 April 25, 1939 - COLLECTOR OF INTERNAL REVENUE v. LORENZO ECHARRI

    067 Phil 502

  • G.R. No. 45624 April 25, 1939 - GEORGE LITTON v. HILL & CERON, ET AL.

    067 Phil 509

  • G.R. No. 45739 April 26, 1939 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. SOTERO PEJI BAUTISTA

    067 Phil 518

  • G.R. No. 45755 April 25, 1939 - ASUNCION ABAD v. AMANDO AQUINO

    067 Phil 526

  • G.R. No. 45964 April 26, 1939 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. RESTITURO FALLER

    067 Phil 529

  • G.R. No. 46035 April 25, 1939 - DIRECTOR OF LANDS v. PHILIPPINE NATIONAL BANK, ET AL.

    067 Phil 531

  • G.R. No. 46260 April 26, 1939 - PABLO TAMAYO v. FRANCISCO E. JOSE, ET AL.

    067 Phil 536

  • G.R. No. 46356 April 25, 1939 - FRUCTUOSA VELASCO VDA. DE TALAVERA v. CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION FOR WOMEN

    067 Phil 538

  • G.R. No. 45403 April 26, 1939 - NATIONAL CITY BANK OF NEW YORK v. NEW YORK TONG LIN & MARINE INSURANCE COMPANY

    067 Phil 544

  • G.R. No. 45519 April 26, 1939 - RUFINA SALAO, ET AL. v. TEOFILO C. SANTOS, ET AL.

    067 Phil 547

  • G.R. No. 45521 April 26, 1939 - JOSE MORENO, ET AL. v. BONIFACIO SAN MATEO, ET AL.

    067 Phil 551

  • G.R. No. 45598 April 26, 1939 - TAN PHO v. HASSAMAL DALAMAL

    067 Phil 555

  • G.R. No. 45614 April 26, 1939 - NORBERTO FORDAN v. ANTONIO LUZON

    067 Phil 559

  • G.R. No. 45662 April 26, 1939 - ENRIQUE CLEMENTE v. DIONISIO GALVAN

    067 Phil 565

  • G.R. No. 46366 April 26, 1939 - PHILIPPINE NATIONAL BANK v. PARDO Y ROBLES HERMANOS, ET AI. .

    067 Phil 570

  • G.R. No. 46492 April 26, 1939 - RAMON SOTELO v. ARSENIO P. DIZON, ET AL.

    067 Phil 573

  • G.R. No. 45173 April 27, 1939 - RED LINE TRANSPORTATION CO., INC. v. BACHRACH MOTOR COMPANY, INC.

    067 Phil 577

  • G.R. No. 45359 April 27, 1939 - JACINTO M. DEL SAZ OROZCO, ET AL. v. SALVADOR ARANETA

    067 Phil 591

  • G.R. No. 45506 April 27, 1939 - FORTUNATO MANZANERO v. REMEDIOS BONGON

    067 Phil 595

  • G.R. No. 45508 April 27, 1939 - SEGUNDA DEVEZA v. ERIBERTO BALMEO, ET AL.

    067 Phil 603

  • G.R. No. 45534 April 27, 1939 - JOSEFA RIZAL MERCADO, ET AL. v. ALFREDO HIDALGO REAL

    067 Phil 608

  • G.R. No. 45694 April 27, 1939 - FRANCISCO YATCO v. EL HOGAR FILIPINO

    067 Phil 610

  • G.R. No. 45724 April 27, 1939 - IGNACIO DE GUZMAN, ET AL. v. TEODORO IBEA, ET AL.

    067 Phil 633

  • G.R. No. 45741 April 27, 1939 - F. Y A. GARCIA DIEGO v. GLORIA DE ANTONIO, ET AL.

    067 Phil 637

  • G.R. No. 45185 April 28, 1939 - GOVERNMENT OF THE PHIL. v. SALUD ALDEGUER VIUDA DE ROMERO SALAS

    067 Phil 643

  • G.R. No. 45464 April 28, 1939 - JOSUE SONCUYA v. CARMEN DE LUNA

    067 Phil 646

  • G.R. No. 45625 April 28, 1939 - MARGARITA VILLANUEVA v. JUAN SANTOS

    067 Phil 648

  • G.R. No. 45761 April 28, 1939 - JULIA DEL ROSARIO, ET AL. v. ANTONIO DEL ROSARIO, ET AL.

    067 Phil 652

  • G.R. No. 45266 April 29, 1939 - SIMEON RAEL v. PROVINCIAL GOVERNMENT OF RIZAL

    067 Phil 654

  • G.R. No. 45410 April 29, 1939 - MACONDRAY & CO., INC. v. JOSE BERNABE

    067 Phil 658

  • G.R. No. 45412 April 29, 1939 - COSME CARLOS, ET AL. v. COSME CARLOS

    067 Phil 662

  • G.R. No. 45425 April 29, 1939 - JOSE GATCHALIAN v. COLLECTOR OF INTERNAL REVENUE

    067 Phil 666

  • G.R. No. 45479 April 29, 1939 - FELIX ATACADOR v. HILARION SILAYAN

    067 Phil 674

  • G.R. No. 45597 April 29, 1939 - MACARIA PASCUAL v. LORENZA RAMIREZ, ET AL.

    067 Phil 678

  • G.R. No. 45965 April 29, 1939 - AMPARO GONZALEZ, ET AL. v. PRIMITIVO TRINIDAD, ET AL.

    067 Phil 682

  • G.R. No. 46003 April 29, 1939 - SIXTO DE LA COSTA, ET AL. v. BONIFACIO CLEOFAS

    067 Phil 686

  • G.R. No. 46026 April 29, 1939 - JESUSA PORTILLO-RIVERA v. STRACHAN, MACMURRAY & CO., LTD.

    067 Phil 694

  • G.R. No. 46604 April 29, 1939 - FRANCISCO MORFE, ET AL. v. JUSTICE OF THE PEACE OF CALOOCAN, ET AL.

    067 Phil 696

  •  





     
     

    G.R. No. 45739   April 26, 1939 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. SOTERO PEJI BAUTISTA<br /><br />067 Phil 518

     
    PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

    EN BANC

    [G.R. No. 45739. April 26, 1939.]

    THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. SOTERO PEJI BAUTISTA, Accused-appellee.

    Solicitor-General Tuason for Appellant.

    Emiliano T. Tirona for Appellee.

    SYLLABUS


    1. CRIMINAL LAW; FALSE TESTIMONY; FORMS OF THIS CRIME. — The Revised Penal Code divides false testimony into three forms: first, false testimony in a criminal case (arts. 180 and 181); second, false testimony in a civil case (art. 182); and third, false testimony in other cases. The requisites for each of these three forms are different, and the penalties for each one of them and for each of their variations are also different. From the foregoing it is obvious that it is not the same thing to charge one with false testimony in a criminal case and to charge him with false testimony in a civil case, and with the same crime in other cases.

    2. ID.; ID.; JEOPARDY; PRELIMINARY INVESTIGATION IS NOT A TRIAL NOR A PART THEREOF. — If in this case there had been nothing more than a preliminary investigation, it clearly could not be said that the accused had ever been in jeopardy. This is because a preliminary investigation is not a trial or any part thereof and does not have for its object that of determining definitely the guilt of the accused by proofs, counterproofs, and the other formalities prescribed by law. (U. S. v. Yu Tuico, 34 Phil., 209.)

    3. ID.; ID.; ID.; COMPETENT COURT. — One cannot be considered to have been in jeopardy unless the prior judgment, whether one of acquittal or conviction in the proper case, has been rendered by a court having jurisdiction to try the same by reason of the crime with-which he was charged and the penalty prescribed therefor. (Grafton v. U. S., 206 U. S., 333; 11 Phil., 776; U. S. v. Rubin, 28 Phil., 631.)

    4. ID.; ID.; ID,; ID. — In cases of lack of authority or jurisdiction on the part of the judge, the proceedings taken by him are null and the trial of the accused under said circumstances has not placed him in danger of conviction for the reason that there has been no really valid trial. Therefore, the right of the government to prosecute the crime subsists and must be attended to by the competent judge called upon to take cognizance of the same, and the defense of jeopardy does not lie against it. (U. S. v. Arceo, 11 Phil., 630; Kepner v. U. S., 195 U. S., 100; 11 Phil., 669; U. S. v. Jayme, 24 Phil., 90; U. S. v. Ledesma and Bernad, 29 Phil., 431.)

    5. ID.; ID.; ID.; IMPROPER DISMISSAL. — By virtue of the facts stated in the decision of the court, Held: That the dismissal ordered by the lower court in this case was clearly erroneous and the order appealed from not being in accordance with law, the same must be reversed.


    D E C I S I O N


    DIAZ, J.:


    This case is before us by virtue of an appeal interposed by the Solicitor-General to the resolution of the Court of First Instance of Cavite of September 10, 1937 dismissing said case for the following reasons: first, that the accused Sotero Peji Bautista was not given a preliminary investigation before trial; and second, that said accused had been twice put in jeopardy.

    The undisputed facts bearing upon the case are the following: On July 22, 1935 the accused Sotero Peji Bautista was charged by one Ong Loo in the justice of the peace court of Kawit, Cavite, with having violated the provisions of article 183 of the Revised Penal Code on May 30, 1936 by knowingly subscribing under oath a false affidavit couched in the following language:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

    "I, the undersigned herein affirmed, of lawful age, and a native of Binakayan, Kawit, Cavite, under the guidance of normal mind, in the name of the law, and in the presence of lawfull authority do hereby declare the following:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

    "That Ong Loo, the alleged defendant to the case, is personally known to me and we had been acquainted with each other within a period of several months.

    "That several times and oft during the period of our acquaintanceship I had told and informed the said defendant of the value of manuscript as specified thereto in the complaint.

    "That on or about December 12, 1934, in the Municipality of Kawit, Province of Cavite, after a skillful management actually taking due advantage of our acquaintanceship, defendant succeeded to acquire possession of said manuscript.

    "That said defendant guaranteed himself by delivering to me wilfully, voluntarily, and under no constraint whatsoever, a pledge of security.

    "That defendant promised upon his word of honor to abide by the obligation to return and produce said manuscript upon my demand as rightful owner.

    "That later and again, on or about January 1, 1935, said defendant willfully, voluntarily, and unlawfully managed to dispossess me of the pledge of security through an incriminatory machination prepared and devised by the same defendant, effected and executed contrary to law by city policeman badge No. 733 and thus having deprived of the necessary instruments as a lawful means of defense in case of a controversy like this, the defendant herein named willfully, voluntarily, and feloniously refused and still refuses, and will even refuse to return and produce the manuscript upon my demand as rightful owner. and has thereafter denied, and still denies, and will even deny having received said manuscript, deceitfully, fraudulently, and unlawfully converts and misappropriates the same with intent to profit himself at my own detriment and prejudice.

    "That the manuscript is my source of income and it must therefore be valued according to its earning capacity to the amount of two thousand pesos (P2,000) Philippine currency or its equivalent value in pesetas.

    "That I am willing to submit this to trial for the speedy administration of justice.

    (Sgd.) "SOTERO PEJI Y BAUTISTA

    "Complainant

    "Subscribed and sworn to before me this 30, day of March, 1935.

    (Sgd.) "FERNANDO T. VINIEGRA

    "Justice of the Peace

    Municipality of Kawit

    " (Causa Criminal No. 1047, Juzgado de Paz de Kawit, Cavite) ."cralaw virtua1aw library

    After the preliminary investigation required by law, the justice of the peace of Kawit remanded the case to the Court of First Instance because it did not fall under his jurisdiction and he reached the conclusion that there were reasonable grounds to believe that the crime was committed and that the accused was the one who committed it. Instead of filing an information against the accused for the purpose of charging him with the aforesaid violation of the Revised Penal Code, the provincial fiscal, without further proceedings, filed another charging him with false testimony in a criminal case under article 180 of the said Code, which is; felony entirely different from that which had been the subject of the preliminary investigation by the justice of the peace of Kawit. The information 90 filed by the fiscal contains the following allegations:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

    "That on or about September 26, 1935, in the municipality of Kawit, Province of Cavite, Philippine Islands, the said accused did then and there voluntarily, illegally and maliciously and knowingly make under oath untruthful statements and give false testimony against one by the name Ong Loo, the defendant in the criminal case for estafa No. 1044 of the justice of the peace of Kawit, Cavite, declaring falsely and knowingly that Ong Loo had borrowed from him a certain manuscript for English Idioms in the municipality of Kawit, Cavite, and that he had given him as security for the return to him of the said manuscript, two books (Webster dictionary and English grammar), when in truth and in fact, as the accused knew it full well, that Ong Loo did not borrow in Kawit from him nor elsewhere the said manuscript nor he gave him the Webster dictionary and English grammar as security for the return of the supposed manuscript.

    "Contrary to law."cralaw virtua1aw library

    (Criminal case No. 6999, Court of First Instance of Cavite.)

    The accused on arraignment pleaded "not guilty." After trial has commenced with the fiscal presenting his first witness, the accused objected that he had not been given a preliminary investigation and that the crime with which he was then charged was entirely different from that which had been imputed to him in the justice of the peace court. The judge then presiding over the Court of First Instance of Cavite, the Honorable Emilio Pena, having found the objection of the accused to be well taken, ordered the transfer of the case to the justice of-the peace court of the capital of the province to the end that the necessary preliminary investigation be there made. This done, the justice of the peace returned the case to the Court of First Instance with the report that he did not find reasonable grounds to believe that the accused had committed the crime of false testimony in a criminal case which had been imputed to him. In view thereof, on May 16,1936, the said Court of First Instants then presided by the Honorable Leopoldo Rovira, ordered the filing away of the case, reserving, however, to the provincial fiscal the right to file a new information whenever should he deem proper with the aid of the same preliminary investigation which the justice of the peace of the capital of said province had already conducted. Five days after, or on March 21, 1936, the provincial fiscal filed a new information in a separate case (criminal case No. 7167 of the Court of First Instance of Cavite) charging the accused Sotero Peji Bautista with false testimony in a criminal case, and asked the Judge Pastor M. Endencia, then acting in the place of Judge Rovira, personally to conduct the necessary preliminary investigation on the ground that the justice of the peace of the provincial capital had previously expressed the opinion that there were no reasonable grounds to believe that the accused was guilty. This was done, and when formal trial was about to be held before another judge (the Honorable Marcelo T. Boncan), the accused raised the two questions which, resolved favorably to him through the appealed order, led to the final dismissal of the case.

    1. It is not true, as has been shown by the Solicitor-General, that the accused has not been given a preliminary investigation, for this was conducted precisely by the judge himself, Honorable Pastor M. Endencia, on May 20, 1936 as evidenced by his order of said date, which says:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

    "It appearing from the preliminary investigation made in this case that there are reasonable grounds to believe that the accused has committed the crime of false testimony and that he is liable therefor, the arrest of the accused Sotero Peji Bautista is ordered after which a day shall be set for the corresponding trial."cralaw virtua1aw library

    2. Neither is it true that said accused had been twice put in jeopardy or in danger of being tried for the same crime of false testimony in a criminal case. All that tools place was a preliminary investigation in the first case, names, that endorsed to the justice of the peace of the capital of the province so that said investigation might be conducted. And this proceeding had to be taken because the accused asked for it, invoking his right to a preliminary investigation before the submission of the charge against him. He had then undoubtedly a right to said investigation because when the fiscal first charged him with false testimony in a criminal case, case No. 6999, said fiscal disregarded the aforementioned procedure and formality, it not being possible to declare that the same were observed just because he had them m case No. 1047 of the justice of the peace court of Kawit for the reason that in the latter case a crime distinct from that imputed to him afterwards was involved. The Revised Penal Code divides false testimony into three forms: first, false testimony in a criminal case (arts. 180 and 181); second, false testimony in a civil case (art. 182); and third, false testimony in other cases. The requisites for each of these three forms are different, and the penalties for each one of them and for each of their variations are also different. From the foregoing it is obvious that it is not the same thing to charge one with false testimony in a criminal case and to charge him with false testimony in a civil case, and with the same crime in other cases.

    Therefore, if there had been nothing more than a preliminary investigation, clearly it could not be said that the accused had ever been in jeopardy. This is because a preliminary investigation is not a trial or any part thereof and does not have for its object that of determining definitely the guilt of the accused by proofs, counterproofs, and the other formalities prescribed by-law. (U. S. v. Yu Tuico, 34 Phil., 209.)

    The justice of the peace of the capital of the Province of Cavite, by reason of the penalty prescribed by law for the crime with which the accused was then charged, was act competent to take cognizance of case No. 6999 in which he did nothing more than to conduct, by delegation of the judge of the Court of First Instance, a preliminary investigation prayed for by the accused himself. In this connection it must be noted that the penalties prescribed for false testimony against an accused in criminal cases are not, nor may they be lower than arresto mayor or a fine not exceeding one thousand pesos, and that the penalties which justices of the peace of capitals of provinces may impose by virtue of their original jurisdiction are arresto which cannot exceed six months or a fine which cannot exceed two hundred pesos or both penalties at the same time. (Section 2, Act No. 2131.)

    One cannot be considered to have been in jeopardy unless the prior judgment, whether one of acquittal or conviction in the proper case, has been rendered by a court having jurisdiction to try the same by reason of the crime with which he was charged and the penalty prescribed therefor. (Grafton v. U. S., 206 U. S., 333;11 Phil., 776; U. S. v. Rubin, 28 Phil., 631.)

    In cases of lack of authority or jurisdiction on the part of the judge, the proceedings taken by him are null and the trial of the accused under said circumstances has not placed him in danger of conviction because there has been no really valid trial. Therefore, the right of the government to prosecute the crime subsists and must be attended to by the competent judge called upon to take cognizance of the same, and the defense of jeopardy does not lie against it. (U. S. v. Arceo, 11 Phil., 530; Kepner v. U. S., 19 U. S., 100; 11 Phil., 669; U. S., v. Jayme, 24 Phil., 90; U. S. v. Ledesma and Bernad, 29 Phil., 431.)

    For the reasons set forth, it is evident that the final dismissal of the case ordered by the lower court under the circumstances above-mentioned was clearly erroneous. The order appealed from, not being in accordance with law, must be reversed.

    Wherefore, the aforesaid order is reversed and it is ordered that the case be returned to the lower court so that the trial may proceed for the purpose of receiving the evidence which the prosecution and the defense may present, and judgment may be rendered according to law, with costs de oficio. So ordered.

    Avanceña, C.J., Villa-Real, Imperial, Laurel, Concepcion and Moran, JJ., concur.

    G.R. No. 45739   April 26, 1939 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. SOTERO PEJI BAUTISTA<br /><br />067 Phil 518


    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