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-1941 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. 47054 March 10, 1941 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. DIONISIO HERNANDEZ, ET AL.

    071 Phil 283

  • G.R. No. 47776 March 11, 1941 - DY PAC AND COMPANY v. KATIPUNAN NG MGA MANGGAGAWA SA KAHOY SA FILIPINAS, ET AL.

    071 Phil 285

  • G.R. No. 48054 March 11, 1941 - BENEDICTO AUSTRIA, ET AL. v. SOLICITOR GENERAL, ET AL.

    071 Phil 288

  • G.R. No. 47661 March 12, 1941 - BOHOL LAND TRANSPORTATION CO. v. BLT EMPLOYEES LABOR UNION

    071 Phil 291

  • G.R. No. 47430 March 13, 1941 - MACONDRAY & CO. v. ISABELA ABLAZA, ET AL.

    071 Phil 297

  • G.R. No. 47477 March 13, 1941 - TIMOTEA SAMBAAN v. GREGORIA VILLANUEVA

    071 Phil 303

  • G.R. No. 47772 March 13, 1941 - MONICO A. DIA v. FINANCE & MINING INVESTMENTS CORPORATION

    071 Phil 309

  • G.R. No. 47822 March 13, 1941 - EL PUEBLO DE FILIPINAS v. FRANCISCO BIHAG

    071 Phil 313

  • G.R. No. 47870 March 13, 1941 - GOVERNMENT OF THE PHIL. v. ENRIQUE ECHAUS, ET AL.

    071 Phil 318

  • G.R. No. 47337 March 14, 1941 - ANDRES SOLER v. JOSE FUENTEBELLA, ET AL.

    071 Phil 322

  • G.R. No. 47467 March 14, 1941 - OSAKA BOEIKI KAISHA, INC. v. LEONARDO GUISON, ET AL.

    071 Phil 328

  • G.R. No. 47682 March 14, 1941 - EL PUEBLO DE FILIPINAS v. CONCEPCION PAGAYON

    071 Phil 337

  • G.R. No. 47714 March 14, 1941 - LOURDES RIVERO DE ORTEGA v. FELIPE NATIVIDAD

    071 Phil 340

  • G.R. No. 47774 March 14, 1941 - MAGDALENA ESTATE, INC. v. LOUIS J. MYRICK

    071 Phil 344

  • G.R. No. 47815 March 14, 1941 - FLORENTINO CRUZ v. EL PUEBLO DE FELIPINAS

    071 Phil 350

  • G.R. No. 47832 March 14, 1941 - EL PUEBLO DE FILIPINAS v. JESUS DE LA CRUZ

    071 Phil 353

  • G.R. No. 47963 March 14, 1941 - HIJOS DE F. ESCANO v. JOAQUIN LAO GOO

    071 Phil 355

  • G.R. No. 47401 March 15, 1941 - CENTRAL REPUBLIC BANK & TRUST CO. v. P. L. BUSTAMANTE

    071 Phil 359

  • G.R. No. 47900 March 15, 1941 - ANTONIO SALOMON, ET AL. v. SEVERA BOCAUTO, ET AL.

    071 Phil 363

  •  




     
     

    G.R. No. 47054   March 10, 1941 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. DIONISIO HERNANDEZ, ET AL. <br /><br />071 Phil 283

     
    PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

    EN BANC

    [G.R. No. 47054. March 10, 1941.]

    THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. DIONISIO HERNANDEZ and EMILIANO FRANCISCO, Defendants-Appellants.

    Apolinario Dantis, for appellant Hernandez.

    Jesus Fidelino appellant Francisco.

    Solicitor-General Ozaeta and Assistant Solicitor-General Amparo, for Appellee.

    SYLLABUS


    1. CRIMINAL LAW AND PROCEDURE; MURDER; PROOF OF MOTIVE. — Motive should be proved whenever possible, it being one of the most important aids in completing the proof of the commission of a crime. (U. S. v. Carlos, 15 Phil., 47; U. S. v. Esmundo, 27 Phil., 554.) But while evidence of motive is generally of moment in a criminal case, it is not absolutely indispensable (U. S. v. Ricafort, 1 Phil., 173; U. S. v. Balmori, 18 Phil., 578; U. S. v. Valdez, 30 Phil., 293), and where the evidence is such as to justify a conviction, no proof of motive is necessary (People v. Tagasa, G. R. No. 46177, May 23, 1939).


    D E C I S I O N


    MORAN, J.:


    At about 4 o’clock in the afternoon of June 25, 1937, appellant Dionisio Hernandez was in the house of the other appellant, Emiliano Francisco, in the barrio of Tibagan, San Miguel, Bulacan. Shortly thereafter, they were seen going in a westerly direction, towards San Ildefonso, Bulacan, one of them, Hernandez, carrying something wrapped in a sack, which turned out later to be a gun. At about midnight of the same day they were seen in the barrio of Garlang, San Ildefonso, in the yard of Vicente del Rosario’s house, and there they untied a carabao owned by said Vicente del Rosario. Stirred by the noise of the animal running away, Vicente del Rosario went downstairs, but as he approached the gate to the back yard of his house a shot was fired from a bamboo grove which wounded him mortally and killed him almost instantaneously. Immediately thereafter, appellants were seen running away from said grove towards the adjoining field, one of them, Francisco, carrying a gun. They were charged in the Court of First Instance of Bulacan with the crime of murder and were convicted and sentenced to reclusion perpetua and to pay the heirs of the deceased an indemnity of P2,000, with costs.

    The evidence fully established the truth of the facts above recited. The witnesses, Cirilo Nuñez and Urbano Cruz, recognized distinctly the two accused. The credibility of these two witnesses is, however, challenged on the ground that or two years, from 1937 to 1939, they said nothing to anybody as to their knowledge of appellants’ connection with the crime. But their silence was satisfactorily explained as one due to fear of revenge. A rumor was then persistent to the effect that any one who would testify against the accused would run the same fate of Vicente del Rosario. These witnesses are ignorant, wanting in civic courage, and would not have, up to the present, broken their silence had not the scare and excitement subsided in the barrio and ceaseless efforts been made by the government officers to bring the crime to light.

    It is argued that no proof of motive has been offered. Although there are indications to the effect that both appellants were cattle rustlers, yet, even if no motive is known, there is sufficient evidence to convict the accused. Motive should be proved whenever possible, it being one of the most important aids in completing the proof of the Commission of a crime. (U. S. v. Carlos, 15 Phil., 47; U. S. v. Esmundo, 27 Phil., 554.) But while evidence of motive is generally of moment in a criminal case, it is not absolutely indispensable (U.S. v. Ricafor, 1 Phil., 173; U. S. v. Balmoria, 18 Phil., 578; U. S. v. Valdez, 30 Phil., 293), and where the evidence is such as to justify a conviction, no proof of motive is necessary (People v. Tagasa, G. R. No. 46177, May 23, 1839).

    Furthermore, as to appellant Emiliano Francisco, his confession made before the provincial fiscal and the justice of the peace are conclusive as to his guilt.

    Avanceña, C.J., Imperial, Diaz, Laurel and Horrilleno, JJ., concur.

    G.R. No. 47054   March 10, 1941 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. DIONISIO HERNANDEZ, ET AL. <br /><br />071 Phil 283




    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