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
 

   
May-1949 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. L-1674 May 9, 1949 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. PABLO SOMERA

    083 Phil 548

  • G.R. No. L-1765 May 9, 1949 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. MARIO TANDUG

    083 Phil 551

  • G.R. No. L-1881 May 9, 1949 - MANILA TERMINAL COMPANY v. LA CORTE DE RELACIONES INDUSTRIALES

    083 Phil 559

  • G.R. No. L-1512 May 12, 1949 - EL PUEBLO DE FILIPINAS v. FEDERICO

    083 Phil 569

  • G.R. No. L-1900 May 12, 1949 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ALFREDO LACSON

    083 Phil 574

  • G.R. No. L-2064 May 12, 1949 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ELIGIO TORRES

    083 Phil 595

  • G.R. No. L-1769 May 13, 1949 - PURITA PANAGUITON v. FLORENTINO PATUBO

    083 Phil 605

  • G.R. No. L-1833 May 13, 1949 - MEDARDO MUÑOZ v. EMILIO RILLORAZA

    083 Phil 609

  • G.R. No. L-792 May 14, 1949 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. E.C. CAÑADA

    083 Phil 612

  • G.R. No. L-1429 May 16, 1949 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. RICARDO AQUINO Y ABALOS

    083 Phil 614

  • G.R. No. L-1950 May 16, 1949 - LAO SENG HIAN v. NATIVIDAD ALMEDA LOPEZ

    083 Phil 617

  • G.R. No. L-2014 May 16, 1949 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. BENJAMIN Z. YELO

    083 Phil 618

  • G.R. No. L-1212 May 18, 1949 - EL PUEBLO DE FILIPINAS v. CELESTINO BASA Y OTROS

    083 Phil 622

  • G.R. No. L-1918 May 18, 1949 - PEDRO L. FLORES v. PERFECTO R. PALACIO

    083 Phil 626

  • G.R. No. L-2484 May 18, 1949 - LEE KO v. DIONISIO DE LEON

    083 Phil 628

  • G.R. No. L-2117 May 19, 1949 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. APOLONIO SOMBILON

    083 Phil 631

  • G.R. No. L-1471 May 20, 1949 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JULIAN ORAZA

    083 Phil 633

  • G.R. No. L-1917 May 20, 1949 - CATALINO MAGLASANG v. CIRILO C. MACEREN

    083 Phil 637

  • G.R. No. L-2245 May 20, 1949 - AMBROSIO CARBUNGCO v. RAFAEL AMPARO

    083 Phil 638

  • G.R. No. L-2831 May 20, 1949 - BERNARDO TORRES v. MAMERTO S. RIBO

    083 Phil 642

  • G.R. No. L-432 May 23, 1949 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. IGNACIO CALINAWAN

    083 Phil 647

  • G.R. No. L-1795-6 May 23, 1949 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. PEDRO VALDEZ

    083 Phil 650

  • G.R. No. L-1989 May 23, 1949 - JOSE REYES y RAMIREZ v. EL TRIBUNAL DE APELACION

    083 Phil 658

  • G.R. No. L-2203 May 23, 1949 - SAN MIGUEL BREWERY v. LA CORTE DE RELACIONES INDUSTRIALES

    083 Phil 663

  • G.R. No. L-2431 May 23, 1949 - CEFERINO TAVORA v. PEDRO OFIANA

    083 Phil 672

  • G.R. No. 213 May 24, 1949 - GENEROSA A. DIA v. FINANCE & MINING INVESTMENT CORP.

    083 Phil 675

  • G.R. No. L-1700 May 24, 1949 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. LORENZO MINTU

    083 Phil 678

  • G.R. No. L-2004 May 24, 1949 - PABLO COTAOCO v. RAFAEL DINGLASAN

    083 Phil 681

  • G.R. No. L-2251 May 24, 1949 - EL PUEBLO DE FILIPINAS v. ELISA TANDAG

    083 Phil 683

  • G.R. No. L-1980 May 25, 1949 - CIPRIANO SEVILLA v. CEFERINO DE LOS SANTOS

    083 Phil 686

  • G.R. No. L-944 May 26, 1949 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. FAUSTO AVILA

    083 Phil 687

  • G.R. No. L-1823 May 26, 1949 - GERONIMO DE LOS REYES v. ARTEMIO ELEPAÑO

    083 Phil 691

  • G.R. No. L-1825 May 26, 1949 - EL PUEBLO DE FILIPINAS v. EUGENIO BERSIDA

    083 Phil 696

  • G.R. No. L-2022 May 26, 1949 - GUIA S. J0SE DE BAYER v. ERNESTO OPPEN

    083 Phil 700

  • G.R. No. L-2161 May 26, 1949 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JAMES YOUNG

    083 Phil 702

  • G.R. No. L-2323 May 26, 1949 - M. A. ZARCAL v. S. HERRERO

    083 Phil 711

  • G.R. Nos. L-675 & L-676 May 27, 1949 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. NEMESIO LASTIMOSO

    083 Phil 714

  • G.R. No. L-1274 May 27, 1949 - PHIL. TRANSIT ASSN. v. TREASURER OF MANILA

    083 Phil 722

  • G.R. No. L-1394 May 27, 1949 - RAFAEL ROA YROSTORZA v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

    083 Phil 727

  • G.R. No. L-1861 May 27, 1949 - RIZAL SURETY AND INSURANCE CO. v. BIENVENIDO A. TAN

    083 Phil 732

  • G.R. No. L-1869 May 27, 1949 - JOSE PIO BARRETTO v. N. ALMEDA LOPEZ

    083 Phil 734

  • G.R. No. L-2300 May 27, 1949 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. MARCELINO TUMAOB

    083 Phil 738

  • G.R. No. L-2382 May 27, 1949 - PABLO S. RIVERA v. FRANCISCO ARELLANO

    083 Phil 744

  • G.R. No. L-1606 May 28, 1949 - IN RE: YEE BO MANN v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

    083 Phil 749

  • G.R. No. L-2309 May 28, 1949 - LOPE SARREAL v. SOTERO RODAS

    083 Phil 751

  • G.R. No. L-2518 May 28, 1949 - DONATA OLIVEROS DE TAN v. ENGRACIO FABRE

    083 Phil 755

  • G.R. No. L-2539 May 28, 1949 - JOSE P. MONSALE v. PAULINO M. NICO

    083 Phil 758

  • G.R. No. L-1511 May 30, 1949 - MIGUEL OJO v. JOSE V. JAMITO

    083 Phil 764

  • G.R. No. L-1550 May 30, 1949 - IN RE: FREDERICK EDWARD GILBERT ZUELLIG v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

    083 Phil 768

  • G.R. No. L-1609 May 30, 1949 - REMIGIO M. PEÑA v. FRANCISCO ARELLANO

    083 Phil 773

  • G.R. No. L-1686 May 30, 1949 - EL PUEBLO DE FILIPINAS v. SANTOS TOLEDO

    083 Phil 777

  • G.R. No. L-1723 May 30, 1949 - LUZ MARQUEZ DE SANDOVAL v. VICENTE SANTIAGO

    083 Phil 784

  • G.R. No. L-1978 May 30, 1949 - EL PUEBLO DE FILIPINAS v. ANTONIO ORCULLO Y OTROS

    083 Phil 787

  • G.R. No. L-1996 May 30, 1949 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. SALIP JULMAIN

    083 Phil 793

  • G.R. No. L-2031 May 30, 1949 - HERMOGENES C. LIM v. RESTITUTO L. CALAGUAS

    083 Phil 796

  • G.R. No. L-2069 May 30, 1949 - LUZON BROKERAGE CO. v. LUZON LABOR UNION

    083 Phil 801

  • G.R. No. L-2083 May 30, 1949 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. SALVADOR MALIG

    083 Phil 804

  • G.R. No. L-2098 May 30, 1949 - PIO MARQUEZ v. ARSENIO PRODIGALIDAD

    083 Phil 813

  • G.R. No. L-2099 May 30, 1949 - JOSE ONG v. BIENVENIDO A. TAN

    083 Phil 834

  • G.R. No. L-2130 May 30, 1949 - FRANCISCO SANCHEZ v. PEDRO SERRANO

    083 Phil 838

  • G.R. No. L-2132 May 30, 1949 - JUAN SAVINADA v. J. M. TUASON & CO.

    083 Phil 840

  • G.R. No. 49102 May 30, 1949 - W.C. OGAN v. BIBIANO L. MEER

    083 Phil 844

  • G.R. No. L-1104 May 31, 1949 - EASTERN THEATRICAL CO. v. VICTOR ALFONSO

    083 Phil 852

  • G.R. Nos. L-1264 & L-1265 May 31, 1949 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. TIMOTEO SAGARIO

    083 Phil 862

  • G.R. No. L-1271 May 31, 1949 - BENIGNO DEL RIO v. CARLOS PALANCA TANGUINLAY

    083 Phil 867

  • G.R. No. L-1281 May 31, 1949 - JOSEPH E. ICARD v. CITY COUNCIL OF BAGUIO

    083 Phil 870

  • G.R. No. L-1298 May 31, 1949 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. PEDRO SANTOS BALINGIT

    083 Phil 877

  • G.R. No. L-1299 May 31, 1949 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JACOB J. LOEWINSOHN

    083 Phil 882

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

    083 Phil 885

  • G.R. No. L-1927 May 31, 1949 - CRISTOBAL ROÑO v. JOSE L. GOMEZ

    083 Phil 890

  • G.R. No. L-1952 May 31, 1949 - FRANCISCO R. VlLLAROMAN v. FLORENTINO J. TECHICO

    083 Phil 901

  • G.R. No. L-2108 May 31, 1949 - PAMPANGA BUS CO. v. LUIS G. ABLAZA

    083 Phil 905

  • G.R. No. L-2252 May 31, 1949 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. BARTOLOME BEDIA

    083 Phil 909

  • G.R. No. L-2253 May 31, 1949 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. SERVANDO MANIEGO

    083 Phil 916

  • G.R. No. L-2283 May 31, 1949 - MARINA TAYZON and FLORDELIZA G. ANGELES v. RAMON YCASIANO

    083 Phil 921

  • G.R. No. L-2326 May 31, 1949 - FERNANDO ALEJO v. MARIANO GARCHITORENA

    083 Phil 924

  • G.R. No. L-2351 May 31, 1949 - FRANCISCO ARGOS v. DOMINADOR VELOSO

    083 Phil 929

  • G.R. No. L-2377 May 31, 1949 - REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL. v. JUSTA G. VDA. DE GUIDO

    083 Phil 934

  • G.R. No. L-2450 May 31, 1949 - VERONICA RUPERTO v. CEFERINO FERNANDO

    083 Phil 943

  •  





     
     

    G.R. No. L-2253   May 31, 1949 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. SERVANDO MANIEGO<br /><br />083 Phil 916

     
    PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

    SECOND DIVISION

    [G.R. No. L-2253. May 31, 1949.]

    THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. SERVANDO MANIEGO and LEOPOLDO VILLAMAYOR, Defendants-Appellants.

    Leonidas de Belen and Herminio V. Garcia for Appellants.

    Assistant Solicitor General Ruperto Kapunan, Jr., and Solicitor Augusto M. Lucino for Appellee.

    SYLLABUS


    1. CRIMINAL LAW; ROBBERY WITH RAPE; EVIDENCE; WITNESSES, CIRCUMSTANCES THAT MAY AFFECT CREDENCE AND VERACITY. — Truthful eye-witnesses do not sometimes make perfect witnesses. Their degree of education, their mental condition, the solemnity of court proceedings often account for many defective answer. But judges are trained to make allowances. They pay more attention to the sincerity of the witness, and her willingness to tell the whole story.

    2. ID.; ID.; ID.; ALIBI AS A DEFENSE. — Experience and the rulings of courts hold that the defense of alibi is easy to manufacture and is necessarily weak in the face of positive adverse testimony of the complaining witnesses.


    D E C I S I O N


    BENGZON, J.:


    Servando Maniego and Leopoldo Villamayor were prosecuted, tried and convicted for robbery with rape in the Court of First Instance of Nueva Ecija, and were sentenced to an indeterminate term of imprisonment, to indemnify the offended parties and to other accessories.

    There is no question about the following facts:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

    In the evening of November 1, 1946, between 7 and 8 o’clock three armed men broke into the house of the spouses Tereso Magno and Maria Eser in the barrio of Boliran, municipality of San Antonio, Province of Nueva Ecija. The intruders ordered all the residents to lie face downward and then extinguished the light. The house was not plunged into darkness because the moon was shining bright. Immediately thereafter they proceeded to tie the hands of the inmates bringing Tereso to the batalan, where he was securely tied to a beam. Looting of the house was next. The robbers got money and other articles amounting to P455.82. But they were not satisfied; they had to add insult to injury. By means of force and intimidation the three took turns in having sexual intercourse with Milagros the sixteen-year-old daughter of the unfortunate couple.

    On November 8, 1946, the chief of police of San Antonio filed in the justice of the peace court of that town a complaint charging these appellants and five other unknown persons with the crime of robbery in band with rape. (The intruders had other companions who waited downstairs and even held up some passers-by.) The case was, after investigation, forwarded to the Court of First Instance, where appellants were convicted as two of the malefactors who had looted the house and ravished the girl. On appeal the Court of Appeals examined the record, was inclined to agree to the verdict of guilt, but believing that the penalty properly to be imposed should be life imprisonment, forwarded the expediente to this court pursuant to specific legal provisions.

    The crucial question at the trial and in this appeal is whether these appellants were the perpetrators of the offense, i. e. identification. Tereso Magno swore that these appellants were two of the brigands that ransacked their belongings, that he knew them as civilian guards of the adjoining barrio who had often visited him before. Maria Eser also identified Leopoldo Villamayor who was known to her before the occurrence. The young lady Milagros frankly admitted her inability to identify the rapists.

    The defense was: (a) insufficient identification, (b) alibi. The presiding judge expressly stating that he heard the testimonies of the complaining witnesses and observed their demeanor, declared that he was "fully convinced of the truthfulness of the facts" described by them in the course of "their simple, coherent and natural narration of the facts." This point is the subject of appellant’s first assignment of error wherein their attorney diligently attempted to indicate alleged inconsistencies, contradictions, evasions and other circumstances showing that Maria Eser and Tereso Magno were totally undeserving of that credence which the lower court gave them. Even Milagros Magno’s declarations were analyzed, although she did not identify these appellants, her testimony being confined to the robbery and the rape that unquestionably happened that night. It must be admitted that there are apparent minor flaws in the statements of Maria Eser. She was not a perfect witness. But truthful eye-witnesses do not sometimes make perfect witnesses. Their degree of education, their mental condition the solemnity of court proceedings often account for many defective answers. But judges are trained to make allowances. They pay more attention to the sincerity of the witness, and her willingness to tell the whole story.

    Without distinguishing between the act they saw and the fact they know from information, witnesses sometimes describe both as of their own knowledge. This is illustrated by the assertions of Maria Eser. She said she saw the malefactors raping her daughter; yet she admitted having asked Milagros, after the robbers had left, what happened. Obviously she only saw her daughter being dragged by the men and struggling against them; but because her daughter informed her later that the penetration was completed, Maria made the statement that seems, at first blush, inconsistent with her conduct at the time.

    In this connection, we may advert to appellant’s criticism of the judge who made it of record that Maria Eser and Milagros Magno were in tears while on the witness-stand. There is nothing improper in the action; on the contrary it was the correct thing to do, so appellate courts may behold, upon review, as good a picture as is possible of the incidents at the trial. The defense should not object; it is thereby afforded an opportunity to counteract whatever prejudicial effects the constancia might produce. It might for instance show, if it can, that the weeping was a little trick or was due to extraneous causes.

    Contending that the inmates of the house did not recognize the robbers, the defense points out that immediately after the occurrence Bienvenido Eser, barrio lieutenant, conducted an investigation and both spouses told him they didn’t know the assailants, statement which they repeated to the municipal mayor three days later in the presence of the municipal secretary and the justice of the peace. The spouses gave a plausible explanation; they were afraid that upon revealing the identity of the felons they would be hurt in revenge or ambushed on the way home; however, after they transferred their residence to Cabiao they felt free to denounce. In fact they declared they had informed the mayor that if the civilian guards were assembled they could indicate the guilty ones, expecting that upon identification the culprits would immediately be arrested and the danger to their persons avoided. In corroboration of this explanation we note that, immediately after the crime, the victims took steps to evacuate and after their evacuation to Cabiao proceedings against these appellants started. In further corroboration we also note that appellants are civilian guards, whereas Tereso Magno is a PKM or Huk partisan, and the two organizations are known to hate each other. Magno’s fear of reprisal was not entirely unfounded.

    On the other hand the justice of the peace must have regarded this explanation as entirely satisfactory, because although he attended the mayor’s investigation and heard the spouses’ inability to identify the brigands, he nevertheless gave due course, afterwards, to the information, and issued the order of arrest, registering the opinion "that the said accused had committed the crime."cralaw virtua1aw library

    As to the defense of alibi we find it inconclusive. Both appellants were that night in places about three or four kilometers distant and it was not impossible for them to be at the scene of the felony even if their witnesses had not deliberately lied, considering that a difference of one hour is not uncommon among people who had no particular interest to be accurate. Anyway our experience and our rulings hold that such defense is easy to manufacture and is necessarily weak in the face of positive adverse testimony of the complaining witnesses.

    The verdict of guilt should consequently be upheld. But the penalty must, under the law, be increased, in view of the aggravating circumstances of nocturnity and dwelling which make it imperative that the appellants be given life imprisonment, the crime being robbery with rape (Art. 29 1 par. 2) penalized with reclusion temporal its medium to reclusion perpetua. The appellants should furthermore be ordered to indemnify Milagros Magno in the sum of one thousand pesos.

    Modified as herein indicated, the appealed decision is affirmed in all other respects. So ordered.

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

    Separate Opinions


    BENGZON, J.:


    I hereby certify that the Chief Justice voted to modify the decision as above indicated.

    PERFECTO, J.:


    We concur in the above decision, although subject to our opinion that the indemnity should be increased to P3,000.

    G.R. No. L-2253   May 31, 1949 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. SERVANDO MANIEGO<br /><br />083 Phil 916


    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