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
 

   
October-1949 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. L-1451 October 6, 1949 - TAN TUAN ET AL. v. LUCENA FOOD CONTROL BOARD, ET AL.

    084 Phil 687

  • G.R. No. L-3215 October 6, 1949 - ALONZO A. BAGTAS v. DIRECTOR OF PRISONS

    084 Phil 692

  • G.R. No. L-743 October 11, 1949 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. POLICARPIO DUMAPIT

    084 Phil 698

  • G.R. No. L-1610 October 12, 1949 - DOROTEA DE LA CRUZ v. DEOGRACIAS MARCELINO

    084 Phil 709

  • G.R. No. L-1355 October 12, 1949 - LUCIO PALANCA CHILIANCHIN v. EUSEBIO COQUINCO

    084 Phil 714

  • G.R. No. L-1567 October 13, 1949 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. OSCAR SALICO

    084 Phil 722

  • G.R. No. L-2822 October 13, 1949 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. TEOFILO D. MARI

    084 Phil 738

  • G.R. No. L-3081 October 14, 1949 - ANTONIO LACSON v. HONORIO ROMERO, ET AL.

    084 Phil 740

  • G.R. No. L-3050 October 17, 1949 - ALBERTO A. VILLAVERT v. TOBIAS FORNIER

    084 Phil 756

  • G.R. No. L-2190 October 19, 1949 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. FRANCISCO ABALOS

    084 Phil 771

  • G.R. No. L-833 October 20, 1949 - CARLOS PIÑERO v. MARCELO ENRIQUEZ, ET AL.

    084 Phil 774

  • Adm. Case No. 25 October 25, 1949 - AMBROSIA SUMAÑGIL, ET AL. v. MARIANO STA. ROMANA

    084 Phil 777

  • G.R. No. L-1553 October 25, 1949 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. FRANCISCO CONCEPCION

    084 Phil 787

  • G.R. No. L-1560 October 25, 1949 - DEMETRIA ESTRADA v. ULDARICO CASEDA

    084 Phil 791

  • G.R. No. L-1849 October 25, 1949 - LAUREANA GABIN v. MARIA MELLIZA, ET AL.

    084 Phil 794

  • G.R. No. L-1776 October 27, 1949 - PAZ M. CEA, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

    084 Phil 798

  • G.R. No. L-2413 October 27, 1949 - DIRECTOR OF LANDS, ET AL. v. EMILIO GARCIA, ET AL.

    084 Phil 802

  • G.R. No. L-2057 October 29, 1949 - ESPERANZA F. DE GONZALEZ v. ERNESTO GONZALEZ

    084 Phil 806

  • G.R. No. L-594 October 31, 1949 - LEON O. MANZANILLO v. JOSE G. JARAMILLA

    084 Phil 809

  • G.R. No. L-1454 October 31, 1949 - EMILIO RUMBAOA, ET AL. v. IGNACIO ARZAGA, ET AL.

    084 Phil 812

  • G.R. No. L-1507 October 31, 1949 - HOSPITAL SAN JUAN DE DIOS v. HOSPITAL SAN JUAN DE DIOS, ET AL.

    084 Phil 820

  • G.R. No. L-1551 October 31, 1949 - NICANOR TAN v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

    084 Phil 829

  • G.R. No. L-1554 October 31, 1949 - JULIAN CABRERA v. PEDRO V. LOPEZ, ET AL.

    084 Phil 834

  • G.R. No. L-1873 October 31, 1949 - LUIS SAN JOSE, ET AL. v. EUSEBIO CASTILLO

    084 Phil 839

  • G.R. No. L-1949 October 31, 1949 - REALTY INVESTMENTS, INC., ET AL. v. MARIANO VILLANUEVA, ET AL.

    084 Phil 842

  • G.R. No. L-2089 October 31, 1949 - JUSTA G. GUIDO v. RURAL PROGRESS ADMINISTRATION

    084 Phil 847

  • G.R. No. L-2116 October 31, 1949 - JOSEFA FABIE v. NGO BOO SOO, ET AL.

    084 Phil 857

  • G.R. No. L-2168 October 31, 1949 - CELSO ICASIANO v. BIENVENIDO TAN, ET AL.

    084 Phil 860

  • G.R. No. L-3311 October 31, 1949 - M. MARGOLARI v. TIBURCIO TANCINCO, ET AL.

    084 Phil 865

  •  





     
     

    G.R. No. L-1553   October 25, 1949 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. FRANCISCO CONCEPCION<br /><br />084 Phil 787

     
    PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

    EN BANC

    [G.R. No. L-1553. October 25, 1949.]

    THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. FRANCISCO CONCEPCION, Defendant-Appellant.

    Manuel A. Concordia for Appellant.

    Assistant Solicitor General Ruperto Kapunan, Jr., and Antonio A. Torres for Appellee.

    SYLLABUS


    1. CRIMINAL LAW; TREASON; TRIAL; REOPENING A CASE FOR RECEPTION OF EVIDENCE, DISCRETIONARY. — The matter of reopening a case for the reception of further evidence after either the prosecution or the defense has rested is within the discretion of the trial court.

    2. ID.; ID.; EVIDENCE; TWO-WITNESS RULE. — Although there may not be corroboration between the two prosecution witnesses on the points they testified, yet when the witnesses are uniform in their testimony on the overt act of treason charged, the two-witness rule is complied with.

    3. CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, RULES OF; NEW TRIAL ON NEWLY DISCOVERED EVIDENCE; RETRACTION OF TESTIMONY. — Retraction of witnesses as ground for new trial are not entitled to credit, since their affidavits to that effect are obviously the result of an afterthought, and if they could have lied during their testimony in court for some consideration or motive, they can now by the same token commit another falsity.


    D E C I S I O N


    PARAS, J.:


    This is an appeal from a judgment of the People’s Court finding the appellant, Francisco Concepcion, guilty of treason and sentencing him to life imprisonment and to pay a fine of P10,000 and the costs.

    The appellant was found guilty of treason on three counts, namely: The apprehension on December 7, 1944, in Cebu City, by the appellant (accompanied by Japanese) of Basilio Severino. (Count 3.) The apprehension on December 3, 1944, in Cebu City, by the appellant (accompanied by Japanese and Pablo Labra and Maximo Bate) of Clemente Chica. (Count 5.) The apprehension on January 9, 1944, in Cebu City, by appellant (accompanied by Manuel Cocon and a Japanese) of Gavino Moras. The evidence for the prosecution shows that the three individuals were apprehended by the appellant or at his instigation, due to their guerrilla connections.

    The first error assigned by counsel for the appellant as having been committed by the lower court has reference to its action in allowing the prosecution to present evidence of appellant’s Filipino citizenship after the prosecution had rested its case and the defense had moved for dismissal. This assignment is untenable, as the matter of reopening a case for the reception of further evidence after either the prosecution or the defense has rested is within the discretion of the trial court (23 C. J. S., par. 1056, pp. 464, 465, 467).

    Under the second, third and fourth assignments of error, counsel for the appellant argues that the charges of which the appellant was convicted have not been proven in accordance with the two-witness rule. Specifically it is contended that while prosecution witness Agapito Severino testified that the appellant, with a Japanese interpreter, arrived at their house and inquired if his brother Basilio Severino was at home, and said that the latter was wanted at the military police headquarters for questioning, the other prosecution witness Edgardo Severino did not corroborate witness Agapito in this respect. Neither did the latter corroborate Edgardo as regards the fact that Basilio Severino was taking a bath and as regards Basilio’s statement that the appellant and his companions should wait. There may not be corroboration between the two prosecution witnesses on the points mentioned, but said witnesses are uniform in their testimony that Basilio Severino was arrested on December 7, 1944. The latter important detail constitutes the overt act of treason charged in count 3.

    The same consideration may be said regarding the criticism of appellant’s counsel that there is lack of corroboration on some details between prosecution witnesses Melchor Ugayong and Victoriano Cagitla, who, however, testified in unison on the overt act charged in count 5, namely, the apprehension by appellant of Clemente Chica.

    As to count 6, it is contended by counsel for the defense that the testimony of the principal witnesses for the prosecution is merely to the effect that the appellant was waiting below the house of Gavino Moras (who was arrested), and that it was appellant’s Japanese companions who came down from the house with said Gavino Moras. This argument is also without merit, it having been established by at least two witnesses that the appellant and his companions arrived at the house of Gavino at the same time, from which the conclusion is inescapable that he actually in a way aided in the apprehension of Gavino Moras.

    It is lastly pretended by counsel for appellant that the latter was an ex-USAFFE officer and joined the Japanese under duress. There is nothing in the record which tends to indicate that the appellant apprehended or aided in the arrest of his victims under actual and imminent threats of death or bodily harm in case he should do otherwise. Upon the other hand, the evidence shows that he willingly perpetrated the acts of treason of which he was convicted by the lower court.

    Counsel for the appellant has filed a motion for new trial based on newly-discovered evidence tending to show that the appellant was merely a liaison officer between the Provincial Government of Cebu and the Japanese Military Police; that three of the prosecution witnesses are retracting, and that the appellant had saved some Filipinos arrested by the Japanese. The first point is sought to be established by affidavits of two Japanese war prisoners. These are not entitled to credit, as their affidavits were executed after the defeat of Japan in the last war, of which fact the Japanese affiants may be assumed to be aware. Besides, the alleged civilian position of the appellant did not prevent him from becoming a traitor to his country. Neither are the three retracting witnesses entitled to credit, since their affidavits are obviously the result of an afterthought, and if they could have lied during their testimony in court for some consideration or motive, they can now by the same token commit another falsity. The alleged circumstance that the appellant helped some of his countrymen arrested by the Japanese certainly does not exempt him from criminal liability.

    The appealed judgment, being in conformity with the facts and the law, is affirmed. So ordered with costs.

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

    PARAS, J.:


    Mr. Justice G. Pablo voted for the affirmance.

    G.R. No. L-1553   October 25, 1949 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. FRANCISCO CONCEPCION<br /><br />084 Phil 787


    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