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. Nos. L-1625 & L-1626   August 30, 1949 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. LORENZO PINEDA<br /><br />084 Phil 465

     
    PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

    EN BANC

    [G.R. Nos. L-1625 & L-1626. August 30, 1949.]

    THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. LORENZO PINEDA, Defendant-Appellant.

    Union C. Kayanan for Appellant.

    Assistant Solicitor General Manuel P. Barcelona and Solicitor Jose P. Alejandro for Appellee.

    SYLLABUS


    1. CRIMINAL LAW; MURDER; EVIDENCE; ALIBI AS A DEFENSE. — Under the facts proved in this case, the alibi set up by the appellant is not sufficient to overcome the positive evidence for the prosecution which points to him as one of those who took part in the commission of the crime.


    D E C I S I O N


    PADILLA, J.:


    Early in the evening of 5 November 1946, Justiniano Arcilla and his wife Maria Arcilla were killed and buried in a common grave in the barrio of Malonso, municipality of Bamban, Province of Tarlac. Justiniano Arcilla was the overseer of Tito Feliciano in his rice lands there. The police noticed the disappearance of the spouses and suspecting that Lorenzo Pineda had something to do with it brought him to the municipal building for questioning. As he disclaimed knowledge of the spouses’ whereabouts he was released. About the end of March 1947 a Huk runner by the name of Pablo Rivera fell into the hands of the police and revealed that some people in the barrio of Malonso knew what became of the Arcilla spouses. The police gathered the male inhabitants of the barrio and told Rivera to point to the person who had information about the whereabouts of the missing spouses. Rivera pointed to Dominador Wage. The latter, Francisco Maninang and Andres Galang revealed to the police that in the afternoon of 5 November 1946 while the tenants were threshing palay in the patio not far from the Arcilla home, Lorenzo Pineda asked Justiniano Arcilla to give him a ration of four cavanes of palay. Justiniano granted him one cavan only. Pineda was disgusted with Arcilla because he was allowed one cavan only whereas the others were given two. Pineda disclosed his resentment to Dominador Wage whom he met that afternoon. Faustino Galang alias Romy, Miguel David alias Peping, Bartolome Pasion alias Tomy, Horacio David and Troadio Tamayo, the co-defendants of Pineda, stopped Dominador Wage and Francisco Maninang, who were on their way home, and compelled them to dig a hole in the sitio called Ocho in the barrio of Malonso with shovels furnished them; and after digging the hole they were brought to a place 300 meters away from it. They were guarded by Bartolome Pasion. Later on, about dusk, the house of Pineda was surrounded by people among whom were Pineda and his co-defendants. They brought the spouses down and tied their elbows on the back and led them to the hole. With the butt of a carbine carried by Horacio David, Faustino Galang and Troadio Tamayo struck blows on the heads of the spouses, as a result of which they died. They were buried in the hole. Pineda and his co-defendants were recognized by Andres Galang who was still in the patio threshing palay and was dragged along by the malefactors to the place of the commission of the crime. The latter, Francisco Maninang and Dominador Wage were warned not to reveal what they had seen or else they would be killed including their families. The revelation brought about the arrest of Pineda who made a clean breast of the part he had taken in the macabre crime. This is set forth in an affidavit marked Exhibit A. The dead bodies of the deceased spouses after exhumation were identified by their children.

    Two informations for murder were filed against Lorenzo Pineda and his co-defendants who were still at large at the time Pineda was brought to trial. He was found guilty and sentenced in each case to suffer reclusion perpetua with the accessories of the law, to indemnify the heirs of the deceased in the sum of P2,000 and to pay the costs, provided that the period of imprisonment should not exceed 40 years, pursuant to article 70 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended by Commonwealth Act No. 217. From this judgment the defendant has appealed.

    There is no dispute that Justiniano Arcilla and Maria Arcilla were killed.

    The alibi set up by the appellant supported by the testimony of his wife and of his son-in-law Benjamin Masiclat, to the effect that during the whole evening of 5 November 1946 he did not leave his house, is not sufficient to overcome the positive evidence for the prosecution which points to him as one of those who took part in the killing of the Arcilla spouses. There was a motive for the crime. He was to receive one cavan of palay for ration instead of two that the other tenants like him actually received. It was he who to avenge the discrimination committed by Justiniano Arcilla went to inform his co-defendants about it (pp. 42, 53, t.s.n.) . Two witnesses for the prosecution are appellant’s relatives. Dominador Wage is his son-in- law (pp. 13, 14, 76, t.s.n.) , and Francisco Maninang is married to his niece (pp. 19, 28, t.s.n.) . Asked whether his son-in-law Dominador Wage had any grudge against him or entertained any ill-feeling towards him, appellant swore that he did not (p. 84, t.s.n.) . After appellant’s arrest his wife sent for her son-in-law Wage to live with her in the house (p. 15, t.s.n.) . Appellant’s testimony at his trial on the third-degree cure resorted to, to wring from him the confession which appears in the affidavit Exhibit A cannot be believed. His wife testifies that she did not notice anything on his body (p. 92 t.s.n.) which might have been the result of illtreatment. And this must be true, for if he really was maltreated in the way he testified, he could not have talked to his wife the following day when she went to the municipal jail to see him.

    The judgment appealed from is affirmed with costs.

    Moran, C.J., Ozaeta, Paras, Feria, Bengzon, Tuason, Montemayor and Reyes, JJ., concur.

    G.R. Nos. L-1625 & L-1626   August 30, 1949 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. LORENZO PINEDA<br /><br />084 Phil 465


    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