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-1950 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. L-2265 April 1, 1950 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. DOMINGO RAFALLO, ET AL

    086 Phil 22

  • G.R. No. L-2618 April 1, 1950 - EL PUEBLO DE FILIPINAS vs.FLORENTINO PEREMNE

    086 Phil 31

  • G.R. No. L-3024 April 1, 1950 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. LAZARO ALBAR

    086 Phil 36

  • G.R. No. L-1698 April 8, 1950 - MARIANO GRANADOS v. CELEDONIO MONTON

    086 Phil 42

  • G.R. No. L-1867 April 8, 1950 - CARMEN DE LA PAZ VDA. DE ONGSIAKO v. TEODORICO GAMBOA,ET AL

    086 Phil 50

  • G.R. No. L-820 April 11, 1950 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. AURELIO ALVERO

    086 Phil 58

  • G.R. No. 1753 April 12, 1950 - EL PUEBLO DE FILIPINAS v. FAUSTINO A. ESTEFA

    086 Phil 104

  • G.R. No. L-2489 April 12, 1950 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. CONRADO EVANGELISTA ET AL.

    086 Phil 112

  • G.R. No. L-1717 April 17, 1950 - JUANA MANLINCON v. MAGNO DE VERA, ET AL

    086 Phil 115

  • G.R. No. L-2438 April 17, 1950 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. FAUSTO LACAYA

    086 Phil 118

  • G.R. No. L-2266 April 17, 1950 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. SALVADOR BAYTAN and JESUS BAYTAN

    086 Phil 126

  • G.R. No. L-2255 April 18, 1950 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. HIGINO SIGUE

    086 Phil 132

  • G.R. No. L-2858 April 19, 1950 - EL PUEBLO DE FILIPINAS v. FELIPE VISTA

    086 Phil 140

  • G.R. No. L-1807 April 20, 1950 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. DY TOO, ET AL

    086 Phil 146

  • G.R. No. L-2205 April 20, 1950 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ANASTACIO REYES

    086 Phil 153

  • G.R. No. L-2433 April 20, 1950 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. GENARO GUCOR ET AL.

    086 Phil 157

  • G.R. No. L-2254 April 20, 1950 - THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. VICENTE O. DEL ROSARIO and NATALIO B. BACALSO

    086 Phil 163

  • G.R. No. L-333 April 21, 1950 - JOSE G. CUAYCONG ET AL. v. RAMON S. RIUS

    086 Phil 170

  • G.R. No. L-2325 Abril, 21, 1950 - EL PUEBLO DE FILIPINAS v. MARCOS DUCO, ET AL

    086 Phil 176

  • G.R. No. L-2879 April 21, 1950 - MIGUEL SOCCO REYES v. POTENCIANO PECSON, ET AL

    086 Phil 181

  • G.R. No. L-2390 April 24, 1950 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. PEDRO BALDERA, ET AL

    086 Phil 189

  • G.R. No. L-2523 April 24, 1950 - FELIPE C. ALVIAR ET AL. v. REV. LEO A. CULLUM

    086 Phil 193

  • G.R. No. L-2833 April 24, 1950 - JUAN URIARTE Y HERMANOS v. JOSE TEODORO, ET AL

    086 Phil 196

  • G.R. No. L-2232 April 25, 1950 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. AGATON MARTIN

    086 Phil 204

  • G.R. No. L-2233 April 25, 1950 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. TIMOTEO TAMAYO

    086 Phil 209

  • G.R. No. L-222 April 26, 1950 - SALVACION F. VDA. DE EDUQUE v. JOSE M. OCAMPO

    086 Phil 216

  • G.R. No. L-2082 April 26, 1950 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. NEMESIO LLANETA, ET AL

    086 Phil 219

  • G.R. No. L-2154 April 26, 1950 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ANTONIO OTADORA ET AL.

    086 Phil 244

  • G.R. No. L-2279 April 26, 1950 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. LEOPOLDO ZABALA, ET AL

    086 Phil 251

  • G.R. No. L-2623 April 26, 1950 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ARSENIO BANAYAD

    086 Phil 259

  • G.R. No. L-2649, April 26, 1950 - EL PUEBLO DE FILIPINAS v. SEGUNDO O. PINEDA, ET AL

    086 Phil 266

  • G.R. No. L-2866 April 26, 1950 - EL PUEBLO DE FILIPINAS v. PEDRO O. MACASO

    086 Phil 272

  • G.R. No. L-1733 April 29, 1950 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. GABINO R. TUASON

    086 Phil 278

  • G.R. No. L-1914 April 29, 1950 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. PEDRO LINCUNA, ET AL

    086 Phil 282

  • G.R. No. L-2054 April 29, 1950 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JOSE VILLAMORA ET AL.

    086 Phil 287

  • G.R. No. L-2080 April 29, 1950 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. POLICARPIO RUIZ, ET AL

    086 Phil 293

  • G.R. No. L-2185 April 29, 1950 - PASTOR PACCIAL v. MARIA O. PALERMO

    086 Phil 297

  • G.R. No. L-2604 April 29, 1950 - PHIL. NEWSPAPER GUILD, ET AL v. EVENING NEWS, INC.

    086 Phil 303

  • G.R. No. L-2771 April 29, 1950 - ALFONSO UMALI v. PRIMITIVO LOVINA

    086 Phil 313

  •  





     
     

    G.R. No. L-1733   April 29, 1950 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. GABINO R. TUASON<br /><br />086 Phil 278

     
    PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

    SECOND DIVISION

    [G.R. No. L-1733. April 29, 1950.]

    THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. GABINO R. TUASON, Defendant-Appellant.

    Manuel A. Concordia and Benicio E. Gueco for Appellant.

    Solicitor General Felix Bautista Angelo and Solicitor Francisco Carreon for Appellee.

    SYLLABUS


    1. EVIDENCE; WITNESSES’ OBSERVATION ON A FACT. — Two witnesses admittedly present while a fact is taking place may not coincide in describing all the details of the occurrence. One may mention details which the other may not have observed or may not remember. The apparent conflict may be due to difference in observation or memory which does not necessarily imply falsehood on their part.


    D E C I S I O N


    MORAN, C.J. :


    Appellant Gabino R. Tuason was convicted by the People’s Court of the crime of treason on counts 1, 2, 4 and 6, alleged in the amended information, and was sentenced to life imprisonment and to pay a fine of P10,000 and the costs.

    The appellant is a Filipino citizen. Under counts 1 and 2, it has been proven that on April 22, 1944, appellant, with two Japanese and twenty Filipinos, went to the house of Cornelia Cruz in the barrio of Ugong Norte, Pasig, Rizal, at about 5 o’clock in the morning, and there they arrested and tied Sotero Historia. On the same occasion, they also arrested Mario, Faustino, Jose and Angel, all surnamed Fereyra and one Julian Javier. They later proceeded with their prisoners to barrio Rosario, Pasig, Rizal, and went to the house of the spouses Sixto Santos and Macaria Mendiola. They ordered said spouses to come down and inquired from them as to the whereabouts of the father and mother of Macaria Mendiola, suspected by the appellant of being members of the guerrilla forces. Since the spouses refused to give the desired information, they were tied and slapped and Sixto Santos was kicked and taken to a place under a mango tree where the other prisoners were, and Macaria Mendiola was thrown into a small bonfire thus suffering minor burns. The assailants took from the house of the spouses some clothes worth P20, and brought their prisoners to Pasig. Sotero Historia was never heard from again. Julian Javier and the Fereyras were allowed to go home that same day. Sixto Santos was released nine days thereafter. All these facts have been testified to by witnesses Cornelia Cruz (mother of Sotero Historia), Sixto Santos and Macaria Mendiola.

    The arrest of Sotero Historia in his mother’s house was testified to by his mother alone, Cornelia Cruz, but the spouses Sixto Santos and Macaria Mendiola saw also Sotero Historia arrested and tied together with the Fereyras and Julian Javier, under the mango tree abovementioned. And said spouses testified to all the incidents that had happened after that occasion. This is a sufficient compliance with the two-witness rule.

    The defense witnesses, Cirilo Tuason and Felipe Reyes, both treason detainees, testified that appellant was not among those who arrested Sotero Historia and Sixto Santos. This denial cannot, of course, prevail over the positive testimonies of the three witnesses for the prosecution. The same consideration applies to appellant’s testimony to the effect that he had no participation in said arrest because since 1943 till liberation he has always been in the barrio of Calawaan.

    Under count No. 4, the facts proven by witnesses Florencia Santiago, Lucia Sautos, Maxima Javier and the victim himself, Celestino Reyes, are as follows:.

    In the first week of December, 1944, Celestino Reyes who was suspected by appellant of being a member of the guerrilla forces, was driving a carretela in the barrio of Rosario, Pasig, Rizal, going towards Mariquina. Appellant and his companions stopped the carretela and forced Celestino Reyes to come down. Appellant hit him in the neck with the butt of a gun and Reyes fell unconscious on the ground. He was then taken to a nearby yard where he was tied and tortured by appellant. A .45 caliber revolver was aimed at his forehead to scare him, and upon his refusal to admit that he was a member of the guerrilla forces his torture was resumed. Later he was put back in the carretela which appellant and his companions also boarded and they all proceeded to Pasig. Celestino Reyes kicked appellant who was driving the carretela, grabbed from him a .45 calibre revolver, fell from the carretela and ran away, but he was overtaken and was knocked down. He got up again and ran away and a shot hit him on the right leg, but he succeeded in making good his escape.

    While it is true that witness Maxima Javier does not seem to have recognized the identity of the victim, yet the arrest and torture of Celestino Reyes are facts admitted by the defense. It is claimed, however, by appellant, that only Felipe Sanpedro and Eleno del Rosario were the authors of such arrest and torture, appellant having had absolutely no participation therein. But again this denial cannot prevail over the positive testimonies of the four witnesses for the prosecution who have no ill motive to falsely impute a serious crime to defendant-appellant.

    As regards count No. 6, the facts proven by witnesses Cornelia Cruz and Icasiana Gimenez are as follows:.

    In the first week of February, 1945, at about 5 o’clock in the morning, appellant with some makapilis, arrested Sebastian Raymundo in the barrio of Bulao, and took him to barrio Rosario, Pasig, Rizal. Later in the afternoon, Sebastian Raymundo was brought back to barrio Bulao for the purpose of making him indicate the other members of the guerrilla forces who were hiding in that barrio. He was not able, however, to point out any guerrilleros, and for that reason, he was beaten up by appellant with the butt of a gun and he fell unconscious on the ground. Sometime thereafter, Sebastian Raymundo died.

    Cornelia Cruz testified that the victim died three days after he was tortured, while Icasiana Gimenez testified that his death took place in the same afternoon he was maltreated. However, the fact remains that Raymundo died from the maltreatment inflicted upon him. Whether he died on the same day he was maltreated or three days thereafter, is immaterial. The testimony of Icasiana Gimenez on that point may be ascribed to an honest mistake, since Sebastian Raymundo might have seemed dead when appellant and his companions left him unconscious on the ground in that afternoon. The witness left barrio Bulao immediately that afternoon and went to the población, so she could not have known that Raymundo died three days later.

    Icasiana Gimenez testified that appellant personally struck Sebastian Raymundo with the butt of a gun; Cornelia Cruz, upon the other hand, testified that appellant did nothing though he was present when Sebastian Raymundo was tortured. Again, this apparent discrepancy does not necessarily imply falsehood on the part of the witnesses. Two witnesses admittedly present while a fact is taking place may not coincide in describing all the details of the occurrence. One may mention details which the other may not have observed or may not remember. The apparent conflict, therefore, may be due to differences in observation or memory.

    In the instant case, the two witnesses coincide on a substantial detail, namely, the presence of the accused during the torture of Sebastian Raymundo. That, together with the other proofs, is sufficient to establish appellant’s guilt.

    Exhibit 3 was offered as evidence by the defense to prove that Eleno del Rosario and Guillermo Figueroa pleaded guilty to a charge of homicide committed against Sebastian Raymundo, and that, accordingly, they were sentenced to an indeterminate penalty of six years and one day of prisión mayor to twelve years and one day of reclusión temporal, to pay an indemnity of P2,000 to the heirs of the victim and the costs. It appears, however, that the guilt of Eleno del Rosario and Guillermo Figueroa is not at all inconsistent with and does not exclude appellant’s guilt. According to the evidence in the instant case, Eleno del Rosario and appellant Gabino Tuason acted together and in mutual cooperation in the killing of Sebastian Raymundo.

    We find no reason to disturb the findings of the trial court and the judgment appealed from, being in accordance with the law and the facts, is hereby affirmed with costs against Appellant.

    Ozaeta, Pablo, Bengzon, Tuason, Montemayor, and Reyes, JJ., concur.

    Judgment affirmed.

    G.R. No. L-1733   April 29, 1950 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. GABINO R. TUASON<br /><br />086 Phil 278


    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