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
 

   
August-1949 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. L-1261 August 2, 1949 - CATALINA OSMEÑA DE VALENCIA, ET AL. v. EMILIA RODRIGUEZ, ET AL.

    084 Phil 222

  • G.R. No. L-3059 August 2, 1949 - VICENTE G. CRUZ, ET AL. v. PLACIDO RAMOS, ET AL.

    084 Phil 226

  • G.R. No. L-1494 August 3, 1949 - ALLISON J. GIBBS v. EULOGIO RODRIGUEZ, ET AL.

    084 Phil 230

  • G.R. No. L-1514 August 5, 1949 - BONIFACIO VILLAREAL v. PEOPLE OF THE PHIL.

    084 Phil 264

  • G.R. No. L-1826 August 5, 1949 - JOSE L. GOMEZ, ET AL. v. MIGUELA TABIA

    084 Phil 269

  • G.R. No. L-48346 August 9, 1949 - DESTILERIA C. AYALA, INC. v. LIGA NACIONAL OBRERA DE FILIPINAS, ET AL

    084 Phil 280

  • G.R. No. L-1438 August 11, 1949 - SOCORRO C. VDA. DE ARANETA v. REHABILITATION FINANCE CORP.

    084 Phil 282

  • G.R. No. L-1935 August 11, 1949 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ELADIO BALOTOL

    084 Phil 289

  • G.R. No. L-2062 August 11, 1949 - JESUS B. LOPEZ v. RAFAEL DINGLASAN, ET AL.

    084 Phil 292

  • G.R. No. L-1367 August 16, 1949 - PIO PORTEA v. JACINTO PABELLON, ET AL.

    084 Phil 298

  • G.R. No. L-1892 August 16, 1949 - JACINTO NOTOR v. RAMON MARTINEZ, ET AL.

    084 Phil 300

  • G.R. No. L-1956 August 16, 1949 - LETICIA H. CALDERA, ET AL. v. EUSEBIO BALCUEBA, ET AL.

    084 Phil 304

  • G.R. No. L-3025 August 16, 1949 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ILDEFONSO DE CASTRO, JR.

    084 Phil 306

  • G.R. No. L-1648 August 17, 1949 - PEDRO SYQUIA, ET AL. v. NATIVIDAD ALMEDA LOPEZ

    084 Phil 312

  • G.R. No. L-1029 August 23, 1949 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. REYNALDO L. RAMOS

    084 Phil 326

  • G.R. No. L-2016 August 23, 1949 - RICHARD THOMAS FITZSIMMONS v. ATLANTIC, GULF & PACIFIC CO. OF MLA.

    084 Phil 330

  • G.R. No. L-2035 August 23, 1949 - ANGELITA V. VILLANUEVA, ET AL. v. DIRECTOR OF POSTS

    084 Phil 350

  • G.R. No. L-1761 August 24, 1949 - IN RE: JOSE LEELIN v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

    084 Phil 352

  • G.R. No. L-1544 August 25, 1949 - F. V. LARRAGA, ET AL. v. EULOGIA B. BAÑEZ, ET AL.

    084 Phil 354

  • G.R. No. L-2766 August 25, 1949 - PABLO P. ROBATON v. DIRECTOR OF PRISONS

    084 Phil 357

  • G.R. No. L-2828 August 25, 1949 - JOAQUIN GOZUN, ET AL. v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL, ET AL.

    084 Phil 359

  • G.R. No. L-1760 August 26, 1949 - MARIA MOLATO, ET AL. v. CELEDONIA ARCOS, ET AL.

    084 Phil 361

  • G.R. No. L-2372 August 26, 1949 - INT’L. HARVESTER CO. OF THE PHIL. v. CRISANTO ARAGON, ET AL.

    084 Phil 363

  • G.R. No. L-2044 August 26, 1949 - J. ANTONIO ARANETA v. RAFAEL DINGLASAN, ET AL.

    084 Phil 368

  • G.R. No. L-1617 August 29, 1949 - PANFILO B. MORALES, ET AL. v. OSCAR VENTANILLA, ET AL.

    084 Phil 459

  • G.R. Nos. L-1625 & L-1626 August 30, 1949 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. LORENZO PINEDA

    084 Phil 465

  • G.R. No. L-1563 August 30, 1949 - IN RE: JOSE GO v. ANTI-CHINESE LEAGUE OF THE PHIL.

    084 Phil 468

  • G.R. No. L-1542 August 30, 1949 - JOSE CRISTOBAL v. PEOPLE OF THE PHIL.

    084 Phil 473

  • G.R. No. L-1485 August 30, 1949 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. PABLO DESLATE

    084 Phil 479

  • G.R. No. L-1442 August 30, 1949 - MIGUEL R. MATEO v. PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, ET AL.

    084 Phil 482

  • G.R. No. L-2166 August 30, 1949 - ESTRELLA LEDESMA v. EDUARDO ENRIQUEZ

    084 Phil 483

  • G.R. No. L-2452 August 30, 1949 - LORENZO LLAMOSO v. VICENTE FERRER, ET AL.

    084 Phil 489

  • G.R. No. L-2894 August 30, 1949 - BUCRA CORP. v. HIGINO B. MACADAEG. ET AL.

    084 Phil 493

  • G.R. No. L-3063 August 30, 1949 - MACARIO QUINTERO, ET AL. v. FELIX MARTINEZ, ET AL.

    084 Phil 496

  • G.R. No. L-3226 August 30, 1949 - DOMINADOR S. PONGOS v. HIDALGO ENTERPRISES, INC., ET AL.

    084 Phil 499

  • G.R. No. L-1358 August 31, 1949 - MARIETA J. ROTEA, ET AL. v. LEVY HERMANOS, INC., ET AL.

    084 Phil 502

  • G.R. No. L-1827 August 31, 1949 - ALFREDO CATOLICO v. IRINEO RANJO, ET AL.

    084 Phil 505

  • G.R. No. L-2262 August 31, 1949 - FLORENTINA ZAFRA VDA. DE VALENZUELA v. BERNABE DE AQUINO, ET AL.

    084 Phil 507

  • G.R. No. L-2345 August 31, 1949 - SEGUNDO AGUSTIN, ET AL. v. MANUEL DE LA FUENTE

    084 Phil 515

  • G.R. No. L-2480 August 31, 1949 - FLORENTINA ZAFRA VDA. DE VALENZUELA v. IRENE ZAFRA DE AGUILAR

    084 Phil 518

  • G.R. No. L-2754 August 31, 1949 - FIDEL ABRIOL v. VICENTE HOMERES

    084 Phil 525

  •  





     
     

    G.R. No. L-1514   August 5, 1949 - BONIFACIO VILLAREAL v. PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. <br /><br />084 Phil 264

     
    PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

    EN BANC

    [G.R. No. L-1514. August 5, 1949.]

    BONIFACIO VILLAREAL, Petitioner, v. THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondent.

    Rosendo J. Tansinsin and Pedro T. Pañganiban for Petitioner.

    Assistant Solicitor General Manuel P. Barcelona and Solicitor Jaime de los Angeles for Respondent.

    SYLLABUS


    1. APPEAL; QUESTION FOR REVIEW; NECESSITY FOR SPECIFYING ANY PARTICULAR OBJECTION. — Bare statement of facts without specifying any particular objection does not present any question for review by the appellate court.

    2. ID.; JUDGMENT OF THE TRIAL COURT; GROUND OF ATTACK SHOULD HAVE BEEN RAISED IN, AND DECIDED BY, INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT. — A judgment of the trial court is not subject to attack in an appeal from an intermediate appellate court’s decision unless the ground of the attack was raised or decided by that court, or unless the judgment is clearly void by reason of its having been rendered by the trial court without jurisdiction or by reason of the trial court’s having exceeded its jurisdiction.

    3. ID.; SECTION OF RULES OF COURT DISPENSING WITH ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR, IN CRIMINAL CASES, CONSTRUED. — The section of the Rules of Court doing away with formal assignment of error does not dispense with the necessity of pointing out in some other form technical and non-fundamental errors which do not affect the substantial rights of an accused to a fair trial, and are not patent. Such technical and non-fundamental errors must be specified with convenient proposition and argument if they are to be made the basis for modification or reversal of the appealed judgment or for further proceedings.

    4. ID.; REVIEWING COURT IS NOT EXPECTED TO SEARCH RECORD FOR EVERY ERROR. — The reviewing court is not expected to search the record for every error of which the appellant might take advantage but did not, nor would it be fair to the adverse party for the court to do so.


    D E C I S I O N


    TUASON, J.:


    This is an appeal from a decision of the Court of Appeals. The decision affirmed, with slight modification as to the penalty, a judgment of the Court of First Instance of Batangas finding the defendant, petitioner herein, guilty of a violation of article 341 of the Revised Penal Code (White Slavery Trade), and sentencing him to an indeterminate penalty of from 1 year and 1 day to 3 years, 6 months and 20 days of prision correccional with the accessory penalties provided by law, and to pay the costs.

    The ground of complaint is that the Court of Appeals unjustifiably sanctioned "the actuations of the Court of First Instance of Batangas in practically railroading the trial of the petitioner and in departing from the accepted and usual course of judicial proceedings which has prejudiced the accused-petitioner and affected his substantial rights as to call for an exercise of the power of supervision of this Honorable Court." Specifically, it is alleged that —

    "(a) . . . the complaint against him (accused) was filed by the chief of police on October 15, 1945; the accused arrested on October 16, 1945 (t.s.n., p. 21); the information filed by the provincial fiscal on October 17, 1945; and the arraignment and hearing of the case were set for October 25, 1945 (t.s.n., p. 1);

    "(b) That it was only in the evening of October 24, 1945 that the petitioner was able to contract the services of his counsel in the lower court and when he was arraigned on October 25, 1945 (t.s.n., p. 2) he pleaded not guilty and on the same day, by a written motion, his attorney asked that the petitioner and his counsel be given an opportunity to prepare his defense but it was denied. Again when petitioner’s turn came to present his evidence, he reiterated his petition to grant him sufficient time to prepare for trial but it was also denied (t. s. n., pp. 9, 14, 19 and 20)."cralaw virtua1aw library

    The record furnishes a different version regarding the time the defendant moved for postponement. It appears therefrom that a "motion for continuance" was filed before and not after arraignment and the motion was reiterated verbally after one witness had testified for the defense.

    The denial to the accused of time to plead or to prepare for trial was not raised or suggested in the Court of Appeals. The defendant-appellant’s brief and memorandum filed in the Court of Appeals put in issue only the sufficiency of the evidence. Even though in the brief a recital was made of the dates of the filing of the complaint, of defendant’s arrest and arraignment, of the filing of the motion for continuance and of the trial, yet, the purpose of the recital was, not to invalidate the proceeding or to obtain a new trial but to show, for undisclosed reason, that there had been undue haste in the disposal of the case. Bare statement of facts without specifying any particular objection does not present any question for review by the appellate court.

    In the present state of the case, the function of this Court is limited to seeing whether the Court of Appeals erred on a matter of law. The Court of Appeals did not err in not reversing the lower court’s judgment or remanding the case for new trial on grounds which the court was not requested to consider. If the refusal of the Court of First Instance to grant the defendant time to plead or to prepare for trial was error, it was error of which this Court may not take cognizance unless the appellate court’s attention was called thereto. A judgment of the trial court is not subject to attack in an appeal from an intermediate appellate court’s decision unless the ground of the attack was raised or decided by that court, or unless the judgment is clearly void by reason of its having been rendered by the trial court without jurisdiction or by reason of the trial court’s having exceeded its jurisdiction. The error in question does not come under this category. "Denial of the request for time to answer and to prepare defense was at most matter of error which did not vitiate the entire proceedings." (McMicking v. Schields, 238 U. S., 99; 59 Law ed., 1220; 41 Phil., 971.) Such error may be waived; and it was waived when not urged. Objection made for the first time in this Court came too late to take the place of an objection which should have been made in the brief. "To listen to it now would be, not to prevent but to accomplish, an injustice not to be tolerated except under the most peremptory requirement of law." (De la Rama v. De la Rama, 241 U. S., 154; 60 Law ed., 132.)

    Section 7, Rule 120 of the Rules of Court, provides that "The briefs in criminal cases shall have the same contents as provided in sections 17 and 18 of Rule 48 applicable in civil cases except that appellants are not required to make assignment of errors although it is advisable for them to do so." This provision connotes that, unlike in appeals in civil cases, an assignment of errors is unessential to invoke appellate review. (It should be noted that there the law or the Rules of Court require an assignment of errors to be made, this formality is essential to authorize the appellate court to entertain the appeal. In view of such requirement, an appeal will be dismissed without benefit of review if the brief contains no assignment of errors.)

    The rule means that, notwithstanding the absence of an assignment of errors, the appellate court will review the record and reverse or modify the appealed judgment, not only on grounds that the court had no jurisdiction or that the acts proved do not constitute the offense charged, but also on prejudicial errors to the right of accused which are plain, fundamental, vital, or serious, or on errors which go to the sufficiency of the evidence to convict. The section of the Rules of Court doing away with formal assignments of error does not dispense with the necessity of pointing out in some other form technical and non-fundamental errors which do not affect the substantial rights of an accused to a fair trial, and are not patent. Such technical and non-fundamental errors must be specified with convenient proposition and argument if they are to be made the basis for modification or reversal of the appealed judgment or for further proceedings. Attention is invited to section 17(c), Rule 48 of the Rules of Court, which provides that the appellee’s brief shall contain, among other things, "the substance of the proof in sufficient detail to make it clearly intelligible, the rulings and orders of the court, . . ., and any other matters necessary to an understanding of the nature of the controversy on the appeal, with page references to the record." The reviewing court is not expected to search the record for every error of which the appellant might take advantage but did not, nor would it be fair to the adverse party for the court to do so.

    The judgment of the Court of Appeals is affirmed with costs.

    Moran, C.J., Ozaeta, Paras, Bengzon, Padilla and Montemayor, JJ., concur.

    Separate Opinions


    FERIA, J., concurring and dissenting:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

    I concur in the result, but dissent from one of the grounds on which it is based. The quotation from the decision of the U. S. Supreme Court in McMicking v. Schields, 238 U. S., 99; 59 Law ed., 1220; 41 Phil., 971, to the effect that "Denial of the request for time to answer and to prepare defense was at most matter of error which did not vitiate the entire proceedings," is incomplete.

    The conclusion of the Philippine Supreme Court in said case was that "The denial of a right to prepare for trial, and the consequent forcing of the defendant to his defense without any time whatever for preparation is, under the provisions of our law, equivalent, in our judgment, to a refusal of a legal hearing. It amounts in effect to a denial of a trial. It was an abrogation of that due process of law which is the embodied procedure of the land, and without which a defendant has, in law, no trial at all." (Schields v. McMicking, 23 Phil., 526, 537-538.) This conclusion is correct as a general proposition. But the decision of this Court in said case was reversed by the Supreme Court of the United States, because the defendant in that particular case had sufficient time to prepare his defense. The Court of the United States said:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

    ". . . Under the circumstances disclosed denial of the request for time to answer and to prepare defense was at most matter of error which did not vitiate the entire proceedings. The cause — admitted to be within the jurisdiction of the court — stood for trial on appeal. The accused had known for weeks the nature of the charge against him. He had notice of the hearing, was present in person and represented by counsel, testified in his own behalf, introduced other evidence, and seems to have received an impartial hearing. There is nothing to show that he needed further time for any proper purpose, and there is no allegation that he desired to offer additional evidence or suffered substantial injury by being forced into trial. . . ." (Mcmicking v. Schields, 41 Phil., 971, 978.)

    G.R. No. L-1514   August 5, 1949 - BONIFACIO VILLAREAL v. PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. <br /><br />084 Phil 264


    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