Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1941 > April 1941 Decisions > G.R. No. 47583 April 22, 1941 - RUFINO REYES v. PEOPLE OF THE PHIL.

071 Phil 598:




PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

EN BANC

[G.R. No. 47583. April 22, 1941.]

RUFINO REYES, Petitioner, v. THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondent.

Rufino Reyes in his own behalf.

Solicitor-General Ozaeta, for Respondent.

SYLLABUS


1. DECISION IN CRIMINAL CASES; STATEMENT OF FACTS. — Petitioner here contends that it was error for the Court of Appeals not to have made any specific finding of facts with respect to the evidence for the defense. There is no law that so required Section 133 of the former Code of Civil Procedure, relied upon by petitioner, does not require a finding upon all the evidence adduced by both parties. (Aringo v. Arena, 14 Phil., 263.) The requirement is that, in criminal cases, decisions of the trial courts should contain statements of the facts upon which such decisions are based. (U. S. v. Mariano, 27 Phil., 132 U. S. v. Decaimat, 33 Phil., 44.) And this is made clear in Rule 116, section 2, of the new Rules of Court, which only requires the decision in a criminal case to "contain clearly and distinctively a statement of the facts proved or admitted by the defendant and upon which the judgment is based."cralaw virtua1aw library

2. MOTIONS FOR NEW TRIAL; GROUNDS; REASON FOR RULE. — Settled is the rule that before a new trial may be granted on the ground of newly discovered evidence, it must be shown (a) that the evidence was discovered after the trial; (b) that such evidence could not have been discovered and produced at the trial even with the exercise of reasonable diligence (U. S. v. Tan Jenjua, 1 Phil., 51; U. S. v. Palanca, 5 Phil., 269; U. S. v. De Leon, 1 Phil., 188; U. S. v. Zamora, 2 Phil., 582; U. S. v. Torrente, 2 Phil., 1); and (c) that it is material not merely cumulative, corroborative, or impeaching (U. S. v. Luzon, 4 Phil., 343) and of such a weight that it would probably change the judgment if admitted (U. S. v. Zamora, supra; U.S. v. Alvarez, 3 Phil., 24; U. S. v. Luzon, supra; U. S. v. Hernandez, 5 Phil., 429; U. S. v. Magtibay, 17 Phil., 417; U. S. v. Tengco, 2 Phil., 189; People v. Cu Unjieng, 61 Phil., 906). Evidence which merely seeks to impeach the evidence upon which the conviction was based (U. S. v. Smith, 8 Phil., 674; U. S. v. Valdez, 30 Phil.; 290; U. S. v. Dee Chong Poe, 39 Phil., 466; U. S. v. Singuimoto, 3 Phil., 176), or retractions of witnesses (People v. Olfindo, 47 Phil., 1; U. S. v. Dacir, 26 Phil., 503), will not constitute grounds for new trial, unless it is shown that there is no evidence sustaining the judgment of conviction except the testimony of the retracting witness (U. S. v. Dacir, supra; see also People v. Gallemos, 61 Phil., 884). The reason for this rule is that, if new trial will be granted at every instance where any interested party succeeds in inducing some of the witnesses to vary their testimony outside of court after trial, there will be no end to litigation.


D E C I S I O N


MORAN, J.:


On November 18, 1935, on the occasion of the purchase by the offended party, Pio Rontal, of a money order at the Manila Post Office, the accused Rufino Reyes approached him and requested a change of a twenty-peso bill with twenty one-peso bills. The change having been made, the accused requested again for a change of another twenty-peso bill with ten two-peso bills; and, for the third time, another twenty-peso bill with two ten-peso bills. Shortly thereafter, the accused disappeared and when the offended party paid his money order, the Post Office teller immediately noticed that the three twenty-peso bills were fake Philippine National Bank notes. After a call to the Luneta Police Station, two detectives arrived and placed the offended party and his companion, Alejandro Gorrea, in custody. At the investigation, Pio Rontal explained how the three fake bills came into his possession and gave a description of the person who passed the fake bills to him. The following night, twenty persons were arrested and brought to the police station and one of them was the accused Reyes held on a charge of passing counterfeit money. Believing that Reyes might be the one who swindled Pio Rontal, detective Manrique lined up the twenty persons held in custody and Rontal and Gorrea were asked to identify the person who passed the fake bills at the Post Office. Rontal and Gorrea readily identified Reyes.

Upon these facts, the trial court rendered judgment finding the accused Rufino Reyes guilty of a violation of article 168 of the Revised Penal Code and sentenced him to an indeterminate penalty of from eight (8) years, eight (8) months and one (1) day to nine (9) years and four (4) months of prision mayor, to pay a fine of P60 and to indemnify the offended party in the same amount, without subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency. This judgment was affirmed by the Court of Appeals.

Petitioner here contends that it was error for the Court of Appeals not to have made any specific finding of facts with respect to the evidence for the defense. There is no law that so requires. Section 133 of the former Code of Civil Procedure, relied upon by petitioner, does not require a finding upon all the evidence adduced by both parties. (Aringo v. Arena, 14 Phil., 263.) The requirement is that, in criminal cases, decisions of the trial courts should contain statements of the facts upon which such decisions are based. (U. S. v. Mariano, 27 Phil., 132; U. S. v. Decaimat, 33 Phil., 44.) And this is made clear in Rule 116, section 2, of the new Rules of Court, which only requires the decision in a criminal, case to "contain clearly and distinctively a statement of the facts proved or admitted by the defendant and upon which the judgment is based."cralaw virtua1aw library

It is also contended that the Court of Appeals abused its discretion in denying petitioner’s first and second motions for reconsideration and new trial. The first motion for reconsideration appears to have been based upon alleged newly discovered evidence consisting of sworn statements of various persons; and, the second, on the alleged retraction of the offended party himself. Settled is the rule that before a new trial may be granted on the ground of newly discovered evidence, it must be shown (a) that the evidence was discovered after the trial; (b) that such evidence could not have been discovered and produced at the trial even with the exercise of reasonable diligence U. S. v. Tan Jenjua, 1 Phil., 51; U. S. v. Palanca, 5 Phil., 269; U. S. v. De Leon, 1 Phil., 188; U. S. v. Zamora, 2 Phil., 582; U. S. v. Torrente, 2 Phil., 1); and (c) that it is material, not merely cumulative, corroborative, or impeaching (U. S. v. Luzon, 4 Phil., 343) and of such a weight that it would probably change the judgment if admitted (U. S. v. Zamora, supra; U. S. v. Alvarez, 3 Phil., 24; U. S. v. Luzon, supra; U. S. v. Hernandez, 5 Phil., 429; U. S. v. Magtibay, 17 Phil., 417; U. S. v. Tengco, 2 Phil., 189; People v. Cu Unjieng, 61 Phil., 906). Evidence which merely seeks to impeach the evidence upon which the conviction was based (U. S. v. Smith, 8 Phil., 674; U. S. v. Valdez, 30 Phil., 290; U. S. v. Dee Chong Poe, 39 Phil., 466; U. S. v. Singuimoto, 3 Phil., 176), or retractions of witnesses (People v. Olfindo, 47 Phil., 1; U. S. v. Dacir, 26 Phil., 503), will not constitute grounds for new trial, unless it is shown that there is no evidence sustaining the judgment of conviction except the testimony of the retracting witness (U. S. v. Dacir, supra; see also People v. Gallemos, 61 Phil., 884). The reason for this rule is that, if new trial will be granted at every instance where any interested party succeeds in inducing some of the witnesses to vary their testimony outside of court after trial, there win be and end to litigation. Petitioner’s two motions for reconsideration and new trial do not meet the requirements stated.

The remaining error assigned by petitioner refers to questions of facts upon which the findings of the Court of Appeals are conclusive, upon this Court.

The crime committed by petitioner is one of illegal possession of false Philippine National Bank notes defined in article 168 of the Revised Penal Code for which the penalty prescribed is prision mayor in its maximum period and a fine of P7,500. (Article 168 in connection with article 166, No. 1, Revised Penal Code and article 75, Idem). Under the Indeterminate Sentence Law as amended, appellant should be sentenced to a minimum which shall be within prision mayor in its medium period, such being the penalty next lower to that prescribed by the Code for the offense.

Judgment is accordingly modified and petitioner is hereby sentenced to a minimum of eight (8) years and one (1) day and to a maximum of ten (10) years, eight (8) months and one (1) day of prision mayor; to pay a fine of P7,500, and to indemnify the offended party in the sum of P60, without subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency, with costs against petitioner.

Imperial, Diaz and Horrilleno, JJ., concur.

Laurel, J., concurs in the conviction but not in the penalty imposed in the dispositive part.

Avanceña, C.J., did not take part.




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






April-1941 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. 45706 April 8, 1941 - EL GOBIERNO DE LAS ISLAS FILIPINAS v. FLORENCIO GONZALEZ DIEZ

    071 Phil 365

  • G.R. No. 46894 April 8, 1941 - FRANCISCA NADAYAG v. PABLO R. PADILLA, ET AL.

    071 Phil 371

  • G.R. No. 46944 April 8, 1941 - PARSONS HARDWARE CO., INC. v. EL COMMONWEALTH DE FILIPINAS

    071 Phil 375

  • G.R. No. 47068 April 8, 1941 - PEDRO JOYA, ET AL. v. PEDRO TIONGCO

    071 Phil 379

  • G.R. No. 47126 April 8, 1941 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. MELCHOR MEDINA, ET AL.

    071 Phil 383

  • G.R. No. 47280 April 8, 1941 - JUAN KABIGTING v. POTENCIANO PECSON, ET AL.

    071 Phil 391

  • G.R. No. 47301 April 8, 1941 - PEDRO ADIARTE v. PASTOR DOMINGO

    071 Phil 394

  • G.R. No. 47346 April 8, 1941 - FRANCISCO B. REYES v. JAIME HERNANDEZ

    071 Phil 397

  • G.R. No. 47381 April 8, 1941 - PEDRO S. MARTINEZ v. JAIME HERNADEZ

    071 Phil 401

  • G.R. No. 47404 April 8, 1941 - AURORA HERNADEZ v. JOSE AUGUSTO IMPERIAL, ET AL.

    071 Phil 403

  • G.R. No. 47408 April 8, 1941 - POTENCIANA REBOTOC v. JUAN A. BENITEZ

    071 Phil 408

  • G.R. No. 47428 April 8, 1941 - ALFONSO ALBORNOZ v. DOLORES ALBORNOZ, ET AL.

    071 Phil 414

  • G.R. No. 47442 April 8, 1941 - JOSEPH K. ICARD v. CLARO MASIGAN, ET AL.

    071 Phil 419

  • G.R. No. 47456 April 8, 1941 - ASUNCION PEREZ VDA. DE DE LA VIÑA v. SIMON BUENAVENTURA

    071 Phil 421

  • G.R. No. 47461 April 8, 1941 - TIRSO GARCIA v. ARSENIA ENRIQUEZ

    071 Phil 423

  • G.R. No. 47493 April 8, 1941 - VICTOR AGUILAR v. PEOPLE OF THE PHIL.

    071 Phil 426

  • G.R. No. 47521 April 8, 1941 - PEDRO REMOCAL v. PEOPLE OF THE PHIL.

    071 Phil 429

  • G.R. No. 47525 April 8, 1941 - FORTUNATO MAGLEO v. FELIPE VILLANUEVA, ET AL.

    071 Phil 430

  • G.R. No. 47578 April 8, 1941 - PHILIPPINE NATIONAL BANK v. ESTEBAN I. VAZQUEZ

    071 Phil 433

  • G.R. No. 47725 April 8, 1941 - JOSE GAVINO v. EL MUNICIPIO DE CALAPAN, MINDORO

    071 Phil 438

  • G.R. No. 47763 April 8, 1941 - JOSE ARCE, ET AL. v. ROMAN AFABLE

    071 Phil 441

  • G.R. No. 47830 April 8, 1941 - PLACIDO SUMINTAC v. COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE OF RIZAL

    071 Phil 445

  • G.R. No. 47869 April 8, 1941 - MANILA TRADING & SUPPLY COMPANY v. CO KIM, ET AL.

    071 Phil 448

  • G.R. No. 47896 April 8, 1941 - AURELIO MONTINOLA v. JOSE P. BANTUG

    071 Phil 449

  • G.R. No. 47919 April 8, 1941 - EL PUEBLO DE FILIPINAS v. AMADO JORGE

    071 Phil 451

  • G.R. No. 47960 April 8, 1941 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JOAQUIN MEMPIN

    071 Phil 457

  • G.R. No. 47398 April 14, 1941 - RAYMUNDA SANTOS v. BENITO STO. DOMINGO, ET AL.

    071 Phil 460

  • G.R. No. 47413 April 14, 1941 - MARIANO MOLO v. ALFREDO L. YATCO

    071 Phil 465

  • G.R. No. 47459 April 14, 1941 - EL PUEBLO DE FILIPINAS v. GERALD J. MASSE, ET AL.

    071 Phil 469

  • G.R. No. 47516 April 14, 1941 - MARIANO A. DE CASTRO v. CEBU PORTLAND CEMENT CO.

    071 Phil 479

  • G.R. No. 45769 April 14, 1941 - CORAZON VELOSO DE TORRES v. TREASURER OF THE PHIL., ET AL.

    071 Phil 482

  • G.R. No. 47625 April 14, 1941 - AURELIO REYES v. EUGENIO EVANGELISTA

    071 Phil 487

  • G.R. No. 47709 April 14, 1941 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. DAVID C. SANTOS

    071 Phil 490

  • G.R. No. 47723 April 14, 1941 - CORNELIO EBRO v. FERNANDO FERNANDEZ, ET AL.

    071 Phil 493

  • G.R. No. 47743 April 14, 1941 - COMMONWEALTH OF THE PHIL. v. BIÑAN TRANSPORTATION CO., INC.

    071 Phil 495

  • G.R. No. 47806 April 14, 1941 - LEONCIO GABRIEL v. MONTE DE PIEDAD, ET AL.

    071 Phil 497

  • G.R. No. 47828 April 14, 1941 - CRISTOBAL OLAIVAR v. MANILA ELECTRIC COMPANY, ET AL.

    071 Phil 503

  • G.R. No. 47882 April 14, 1941 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. NICASIO NERIA, ET AL.

    071 Phil 506

  • G.R. No. 46936 April 18, 1941 - GREGORIO REYES UY UN v. MAMERTA PEREZ, ET AL.

    071 Phil 508

  • G.R. No. 46937 April 18, 1941 - MANILA GAS CORPORATION, ET AL. v. COLLECTOR OF INTERNAL REVENUE

    071 Phil 513

  • G.R. Nos. 46999 y 47000 April 18, 1941 - EL PUEBLO DE FILIPINAS v. PRICILA LAUREANO, ET AL

    071 Phil 530

  • G.R. No. 47022 April 18, 1941 - F. C. SOMBITO v. MAMERTO FERARIS, ET AL.

    071 Phil 538

  • G.R. No. 47249 April 18, 1941 - CANDIDA SAN JOSE, ET AL. v. TEODORA A. RUIZ

    071 Phil 541

  • G.R. No. 46817 April 18, 1941 - TEODORO KALAW NG KHE v. LEVER BROTHERS CO.

    083 Phil 947

  • G.R. No. 47252 April 18, 1941 - APOSTOLIC PREFECT OF THE MOUNTAIN PROVINCE v. EL TESORERO DE LA CIUDAD DE BAGUIO

    071 Phil 547

  • G.R. No. 47261 April 18, 1941 - GUILLERMO AMANTE, ET AL. v. ROSARIO MANZANERO

    071 Phil 553

  • G.R. No. 47351 April 18, 1941 - DOLORES BUENDIA DE ALCALA v. LORENZO DE VILLA

    071 Phil 561

  • G.R. No. 47386 April 18, 1941 - VIVENCIA LAGUNA v. AMBROSIA LEVANTINO, ET AL.

    071 Phil 566

  • G.R. No. 47438 April 18, 1941 - ANDRES B. ESPINA v. MARGARITA R. VIUDA DE ESPINA

    071 Phil 570

  • G.R. No. 47523 April 18, 1941 - LUY LAM & CO. v. MERCANTILE BANK OF CHINA

    071 Phil 573

  • G.R. No. 47653 April 18, 1941 - MANILA TRADING & SUPPLY COMPANY v. PHILIPPINE LABOR UNION

    071 Phil 578

  • G.R. No. 47736 April 18, 1941 - COSME PROFETA, ET AL. v. JOSE GUTIERREZ DAVID

    071 Phil 582

  • G.R. No. 47784 April 18, 1941 - LEVY HERMANOS v. PACIFIC COMMERCIAL CO.

    071 Phil 587

  • G.R. No. 47962 April 18, 1941 - MONTE DE PIEDAD v. TOMAS ROBERTO, ET AL.

    071 Phil 592

  • G.R. No. 47557 April 22, 1941 - EL PUEBLO DE FILIPINAS v. MARTIN CONWI

    071 Phil 595

  • G.R. No. 47583 April 22, 1941 - RUFINO REYES v. PEOPLE OF THE PHIL.

    071 Phil 598

  • G.R. No. 47658 April 22, 1941 - CLEMENTE TANJANGCO v. JOSE DE BORJA

    072 Phil 1

  • G.R. No. 47677 April 22, 1941 - INSULAR LIFE ASSURANCE CO. v. MIGUEL VARELA CALDERON

    072 Phil 4

  • G.R. No. 47796 April 2, 1941 - MANILA TRADING & SUPPLY COMPANY v. PHILIPPINE LABOR UNION

    072 Phil 7

  • G.R. No. 46946 April 25, 1941 - PETER JOHNSON v. MOISES UBAÑA

    072 Phil 12

  • G.R. No. 47033 April 25, 1941 - JOSE DINGCONG v. HALIM KANAAN

    072 Phil 14

  • G.R. No. 47076 April 25, 1941 - SALUD BALUYUT v. EL BANCO DE LAS FILIPINAS

    072 Phil 17

  • G.R. No. 47101 April 25, 1941 - GODOFREDO BUCCAT v. LUIDA MANGONON DE BUCCAT

    072 Phil 19

  • G.R. No. 47127 April 25, 1941 - ISABEL BIBBY VIUDA DE PADILLA v. BIBIANO L. MEER

    072 Phil 21

  • G.R. No. 47213 April 25, 1941 - EL BANCO NACIONAL FIL. v. EL JUEZ DEL JUZGADO DE PRIMERA INSTANCIA DE MASBATE

    072 Phil 26

  • G.R. No. 47215 April 25, 1941 - LA MANCOMUNIDAD DE FILIPINAS v. JOSE COROMINAS

    072 Phil 29

  • G.R. No. 47217 April 25, 1941 - JOAQUIN J. GONZALES, ET AL. v. PROCESO SEBASTIAN, ET AL.

    072 Phil 31

  • G.R. No. 47281 April 25, 1941 - ALEJANDRO MALLARI v. MANUEL ESTIPONA

    072 Phil 35

  • G.R. No. 47283 April 25, 1941 - CRISOGONO JERREOS v. CONSTANTINO Z. CANTO

    072 Phil 38

  • G.R. No. 47315 April 25, 1941 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. TERESO DUMON

    072 Phil 41

  • G.R. No. 47320 April 25, 1941 - W. R. GIBERSON v. JUAN POSADAS

    072 Phil 48

  • G.R. No. 47379 April 25, 1941 - AMADA DACANAY v. LA MANCOMUNIDAD DE FILIPINAS

    072 Phil 50

  • G.R. No. 47483 April 25, 1941 - H. HAHN, ET AL. v. J. M. TUASON & CO., INC., ET AL.

    072 Phil 53

  • G.R. No. 47551 April 25, 1941 - VICENTE LOPEZ, ET AL. v. ROMUALDO F. VIJANDRE, ET AL.

    072 Phil 56

  • G.R. No. 47590 April 25, 1941 - ARCADIO DUMLAO, ET AL. v. SIMEON RAMOS, ET AL.

    072 Phil 59

  • G.R. No. 47606 April 25, 1941 - FERNANDO VILLAABRILLE, ET AL. v. SIXTO DE LA COSTA, ET AL.

    072 Phil 61

  • G.R. No. 47626 April 25, 1941 - GREGORIA R. DE MESA v. CIPRIANO V. DE GALICIA

    072 Phil 64

  • G.R. No. 47631 April 25, 1941 - CO HO v. QUIRICO ABETO

    072 Phil 67

  • G.R. No. 47705 April 25, 1941 - CONCORDIA GO v. ANGELA REDFERN, ET AL.

    072 Phil 71

  • G.R. No. 47760 April 25, 1941 - NEGROS TRANSPORTATION CO. v. CARLOS JAYME, ET AL.

    072 Phil 73

  • G.R. No. 47821 April 25, 1941 - SOFIA CABUCO v. JOHN C. BEYERSDORFFER

    072 Phil 77

  • G.R. No. 47856 April 25, 1941 - EDUARDA TAPANG v. EL TRIBUNAL DE RELACIONES INDUSTRIALES, ET AL.

    072 Phil 79

  • G.R. No. 48024 April 25, 1941 - PAGSANJAN AGRICULTURAL ASS’N INC. v. SOR JOSEFA SORIANO

    072 Phil 88

  • G.R. No. 47373 April 28, 1941 - ÑGO HOK CHEF v. VICENTE AQUINO

    072 Phil 90

  • G.R. No. 47655 April 28, 1941 - H. H. STEINMETZ v. JOSE VALDEZ

    072 Phil 92

  • G.R. No. 47690 April 28, 1941 - IRINEO YUMUL v. ANTONIO JULIANO

    072 Phil 94

  • G.R. No. 47741 April 28, 1941 - EL PUEBLO DE FILIPINAS v. SANTIAGO S. VELASQUEZ

    072 Phil 98

  • G.R. No. 47788 April 28, 1941 - DIEGO MARIANO, ET AL. v. EL DIRECTOR DE TERRENOS

    072 Phil 101

  • G.R. No. 47639 April 30, 1941 - EL PUEBLO DE FILIPINAS v. VALENTIN NICOLAS

    072 Phil 104

  • G.R. No. 47645 April 30, 1941 - DOMINGO MABUNAY v. MODESTO BALLEZA

    072 Phil 109

  • G.R. No. 47721 April 30, 1941 - EL PUEBLO DE FILIPINAS v. TEODORO RULL Y OTRO

    072 Phil 111

  • G.R. No. 47732 April 30, 1941 - CORNELIO BALMACEDA v. SIXTO DE LA COSTA, ET AL.

    072 Phil 117

  • G.R. No. 47791 April 30, 1941 - JOSE S. DE OCAMPO v. AMBROSIO SANTOS

    072 Phil 121

  • G.R. No. 47836 April 30, 1941 - ANICETO ALEJANDRO v. DIEGO LOCSIN, ET AL.

    072 Phil 124

  • G.R. No. 47898 April 30, 1941 - MANILA MOTOR CO., INC. v. P. M ENDENCIA, ET AL.

    072 Phil 130

  • G.R. No. 47914 April 30, 1941 - JUAN S. RUSTIA v. QUIRICO ABETO ET AL.

    072 Phil 133

  • G.R. No. 47920 April 30, 1941 - EL BANCO NACIONAL FILIPINO v. SERGIO M. SILO

    072 Phil 141

  • G.R. No. 47921 April 30, 1941 - EL BANCO NACIONAL FILIPINO v. ENCARNACION ESCUDERO

    072 Phil 150

  • G.R. No. 47959 April 30, 1941 - EL PUEBLO DE FILIPINAS v. MAXIMO TACAD, ET AL.

    072 Phil 157

  • G.R. No. 47961 April 30, 1941 - EL PUEBLO DE FILIPINAS v. MANUEL CONCORDIA

    072 Phil 160

  • G.R. No. 47991 April 30, 1941 - SISENANDO MACALINDOG v. MARIANO L. DE LA ROSA

    072 Phil 163