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-1949 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. L-1749 April 2, 1949 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. LUCAS GEMPES

    083 Phil 267

  • G.R. No. L-1441 April 7, 1949 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. MIGUEL N. MORENO

    083 Phil 286

  • G.R. No. L-2179 April 12, 1949 - MANILA TRADING petitioner v. MANILA TRADING LABORERS’ ASSN.

    083 Phil 297

  • G.R. No. L-979 April 13, 1949 - COMMONWEALTH OF THE PHIL. v. FAR EASTERN SURETY

    083 Phil 305

  • G.R. No. L-2745 April 13, 1949 - FLAVIANO ROMERO v. POTENCIANO PECSON

    083 Phil 308

  • G.R. No. L-856 April 18, 1949 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. SUSANO PEREZ

    083 Phil 314

  • G.R. No. L-493 April 19, 1949 - SANTIAGO BANAAG v. VICENTE SINGSON ENCARNACION

    083 Phil 325

  • G.R. No. L-1545 April 19, 1949 - E. R. CRUZ v. RAFAEL DINGLASAN.

    083 Phil 333

  • G.R. No. 48671 April 19, 1949 - EUSEBIO BELVIZ v. CATALINO BUENAVENTURA

    083 Phil 337

  • G.R. No. L-364 April 25, 1949 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. MARIANO T. JAUCIAN

    083 Phil 340

  • G.R. No. L-1282 April 25, 1949 - JUAN S. BARROZO v. MARCELINO T. MACARAEG

    083 Phil 378

  • G.R. No. L-2525 April 26, 1949 - MARY BURKE DESBARATS v. TOMAS DE VERA

    083 Phil 382

  • G.R. No. 48676 April 26, 1949 - LEON ORACION v. PACITA JUANILLO

    083 Phil 397

  • G.R. No. L-793 April 27, 1949 - FELISA R. PAEZ v. FRANCISCO MAGNO

    083 Phil 403

  • G.R. No. L-1259 April 27, 1949 - IN RE: CRISANTO DE BORJA v. JULIANA DE BORJA

    083 Phil 405

  • G.R. No. L-1370 April 27, 1949 - BERNARDA DE VASQUEZ v. ALFONSO DIVA

    083 Phil 410

  • G.R. No. L-1399 April 27, 1949 - IN RE: GONZALO T. DAVID v. CARLOS M. SISON

    083 Phil 413

  • G.R. No. L-1590 April 27, 1949 - RAYMUNDA SIVA v. FELIXBERTO IMPERIAL REYES

    083 Phil 416

  • G.R. No. L-1627 April 27, 1949 - EL PUEBLO DE FILIPINAS v. MAMERTO RAMIREZ

    083 Phil 418

  • G.R. No. L-1976 April 27, 1949 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ARULA

    083 Phil 425

  • G.R. No. L-2056 April 27, 1949 - SANTIAGO ALERIA v. JUAN MENDOZA

    083 Phil 427

  • G.R. No. L-2336 April 27, 1949 - ANGELINA CANAYNAY v. BIENVENIDO A. TAN

    083 Phil 429

  • CA. No. 2592-R April 27, 1949 - SATURNINA ZAPANTA v. VIRGILIO BARTOLOME

    083 Phil 433

  • G.R. No. L-2612 April 27, 1949 - RURAL PROGRESS ADMINISTRATION v. DOMINADOR TEMPOROSA

    083 Phil 438

  • G.R. No. L-855 April 28, 1949 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. TROADIO BUTAWAN

    083 Phil 440

  • G.R. No. L-1275 April 28, 1949 - EL PUEBLO DE FILIPINAS v. FULGENCIO BUSTILLOS.

    083 Phil 443

  • G.R. No. L-1661 April 28, 1949 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. TEODORO CANTOS

    083 Phil 446

  • G.R. No. L-1672 April 28, 1949 - IN RE: ZENAIDA JIRO-MORI

    083 Phil 450

  • G.R. No. L-2028 April 28, 1949 - PHIL. SHEET METAL WORKERS’ UNION v. COURT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS

    083 Phil 453

  • CA. No. 332 April 29, 1949 - CHINA INSURANCE & SURETY COMPANY v. B. K. BERKENKOTTER

    083 Phil 459

  • G.R. No. L-1650 April 29, 1949 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. GORGONIO MACABUHAY

    083 Phil 464

  • G.R. No. L-2899 April 29, 1949 - NATIONAL COCONUT CORPORATION v. FRANCISCO GERONIMO

    083 Phil 467

  • G.R. No. L-150 April 30, 1949 - VICENTE HILADO v. FELIX DE LA COSTA

    083 Phil 471

  • G.R. No. L-1234 April 30, 1949 - VICTORINO FLORO v. SANTIAGO H. GRANADA

    083 Phil 487

  • G.R. No. L-1383 April 30, 1949 - PAZ ESCARELLA DE RALLA v. DIRECTOR OF LANDS

    083 Phil 491

  • G.R. No. L-1523 April 30, 1949 - BIÑAN TRANSPORTATION COMPANY v. FIDEL IBAÑEZ

    083 Phil 503

  • G.R. No. L-1783 April 30, 1949 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. DIONISIO CARPIO Y ESTACIO

    083 Phil 509

  • G.R. No. L-1916 April 30, 1949 - PABLO C. SIBULO v. LOPE ALTAR

    083 Phil 513

  • G.R. No. L-2009 April 30, 1949 - SUNRIPE COCONUT PRODUCTS CO. v. COURT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS

    083 Phil 518

  • G.R. No. L-2122 April 30, 1949 - FAUSTINO BUTER v. TRIBUNAL DE RELACIONES INDUSTRIALES

    083 Phil 526

  • G.R. No. L-46798 April 30, 1949 - PINDANGAN AGRICULTURAL CO., INC. v. ERNEST A. SCHENKEL Y OTRO

    083 Phil 529

  • G.R. No. 49167 April 30, 1949 - CO TAO v. JOAQUIN CHAN CHICO

    083 Phil 543

  •  





     
     

    G.R. No. L-1783   April 30, 1949 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. DIONISIO CARPIO Y ESTACIO<br /><br />083 Phil 509

     
    PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

    SECOND DIVISION

    [G.R. No. L-1783. April 30, 1949.]

    THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. DIONISIO CARPIO Y ESTACIO ET AL., Defendants. DIONISIO CARPIO Y ESTACIO, Appellant.

    Augusto Revilla for Appellant.

    Assistant Solicitor General Inocencio Rosal and Solicitor Luis R. Feria for Appellee.

    SYLLABUS


    CRIMINAL LAW; ATTEMPTED ROBBERY WITH HOMICIDE; EVIDENCE; WITNESSES; TESTIMONY OF AN ACCOMPLICE AS A BASIS FOR CONVICTION. — The testimony of an accomplice corroborated by other evidence may be sufficient as a basis for conviction although it must be taken cautiously, coming as it does from a polluted source.


    D E C I S I O N


    BENGZON, J.:


    In this case coming from the Court of First Instance of Rizal, Judge Bienvenido A. Tan declared the accused Dionisio Carpio y Estacio and Pablo Carel y Mendoza guilty of attempted robbery with homicide. He sentenced the first to a life term and the second to a period of reclusion temporal, both to indemnify the heirs of the victim and to pay the costs. Carpio appealed.

    Early in the morning of September 26, 1947, Norman E. Lamb an American citizen was held up and shot a few meters from his jeep which was parked in front of the house numbered 400 on Leveriza Street, City of Rizal. He had just conducted Gertrudes Castro to her home nearby. She heard the shots, ran downstairs and shouted for help. When people arrived, Lamb was rushed to the Philippine General Hospital and then to the Tenth Army Hospital where he expired on account of his bullet wounds, notwithstanding blood transfusion and other medical treatment. She testified that a few minutes before the shooting, when Lamb was bidding her good-night, she observed two persons walking slowly by the jeep and when she was about to enter her residence she heard several detonations.

    Prompt police activity led to the arrest and indictment of the above-named defendants together with one James Craig y Ruben, who was subsequently discharged to become a witness for the prosecution. He declared more or less as follows:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

    "I am a taxi driver. At about two o’clock in the morning of September 26, 1947, I parked my taxi on Harrison Street, Pasay, behind a jeep marked MPC. Pablo Carel and Jose Gutierrez were sitting inside. Pablo Carel hired my taxi and told me to proceed to Bill’s Place, which I did. Pablo Carel entered that bar and a few moments later he returned to the taxi accompanied by Dionisio Carpio and we went back to Harrison Street where Gutierrez was waiting. Carel alighted, but Gutierrez entered the vehicle. There Gutierrez informed Carpio that a jeep was usually seen parked in Leveriza, that it could be taken, and that he had a ready buyer. Appellant agreed but suggested that they wait for Carel. When the latter arrived we proceeded to Leveriza. Carel gave Carpio his pistol Exhibit I. Then Carpio walked away with Jose Gutierrez. A short while thereafter I was startled by the sound of several shots. Carpio came back hurriedly and told me to drive him to his home in Galaz, Caloocan, Rizal. I asked him what happened. He informed me he had a duel with the American who was inside the jeep. Upon arriving at his home he called for his mother. She advised him to go to a hospital to dress his wound but he refused for fear the policemen might locate him there. In payment for my services Carpio gave me the pistol Exhibit I which I tried to pawn to Pedro Ambrosio. The latter had no money, so I threw it away, being afraid."cralaw virtua1aw library

    It appears that the American returned the fire of the assailants. And when appellant was investigated some hours after the shooting, he had a fresh gunshot wound.

    The pistol Exhibit I was picked on the premises of Pedro Ambrosio. Ballistics expert Julius H. Klinger, criminologist of Philrycom swore that one of the bullets extracted from the corpse of Norman E. Lamb came out of that gun.

    Undoubtedly, the principal and positive evidence against Dionisio Carpio is the testimony of James Craig, the taxi driver, who was an accomplice. It must be taken cautiously, coming as it does from a polluted source. Nevertheless we are satisfied from a carefull examination of the same that he related the true story. He was practically corroborated by the discovery of the revolver near the house of Ambrosio, the wound in the body of Carpio, and partially by the declarations of these same defendants Pablo Carel and Dionisio Carpio who admitted in open court they were present at the scene of the crime, at the time mentioned by the witnesses for the prosecution and with the individuals described by them.

    Said defendants, asserted in exculpation, that they had no previous conspiracy to attack the American, that Jose Gutierrez snatched the pistol from Pablo Carel, that said Gutierrez ordered Dionisio Carpio to follow him, that upon meeting the American, Jose Gutierrez held him up, that Carpio tried to avoid the encounter by placing himself between the two, but that he was unsuccessful, Gutierrez having started shooting. This line of defense is of course understandable, because Jose Gutierrez is still at large and malefactors are not averse to "passing the buck."cralaw virtua1aw library

    On the other hand, as heretofore stated, the testimony of James Craig is sufficiently convincing despite some of the alleged incongruities and unlikely details which defense counsel has diligently pointed out. Such deficiencies admit of reasonable explanation, and do not refer to essentials. It is noteworthy that these defendants were immediately apprehended and made written statements which in many points confirmed the facts established by the testimony and documents submitted by the prosecution.

    The offense is attempted robbery with homicide. We are inclined to think it was murder; but because no person witnessed the manner the attack had begun, the defendant and appellant must be given the benefit of the doubt. Anyway the information charged homicide.

    The penalty prescribed by law for the felony is reclusion temporal in its maximum period to reclusion perpetua (article 297, Revised Penal Code) which is to be applied in its maximum period, there being two aggravating circumstances to wit: nighttime and the use of motor vehicle. The imprisonment meted out to appellant is therefore correct. But the indemnity should be raised to P2,000. With this modification, the appealed judgment is affirmed with costs. So ordered.

    Paras, Feria, Pablo, Tuason and Reyes, JJ., concur.

    Separate Opinions


    PERFECTO, J.:


    We concur subject to our consistent opinion that the indemnity must be raised to P6,000 in accordance with the doctrines in People v. Amansec, 80 Phil., 424.

    G.R. No. L-1783   April 30, 1949 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. DIONISIO CARPIO Y ESTACIO<br /><br />083 Phil 509


    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