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
 

   
March-1950 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. L-1720 March 4, 1950 - SIA SUAN, ET AL. v. RAMON ALCANTARA

    085 Phil 669

  • G.R. No. L-2038 March 4, 1950 - LUIS DEL CASTILLO v. METROPOLITAN INSURANCE COMPANY

    085 Phil 678

  • G.R. No. L-2171 March, 4, 1950 - EL PUEBLO DE FILIPINAS v. IDE LAGON RAMOS

    085 Phil 683

  • G.R. No. L-2407 March 4, 1950 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. MATIAS ALUPAY

    085 Phil 688

  • G.R. No. L-2447 March 4, 1950 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. PEDRO PULIDO, ET AL

    085 Phil 695

  • G.R. No. L-1296 March 6, 1950 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JOSE PALICTE

    085 Phil 711

  • G.R. No. L-1546 March 6, 1950 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILS. v. RUFINO SURALTA

    085 Phil 714

  • G.R. No. L-2462 March 6, 1950 - EL PUEBLO DE FILIPINAS v. GO LEE

    085 Phil 718

  • G.R. No. L-2665 March 6, 1950 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. FLORENTINO PATERNO, ET AL

    085 Phil 722

  • G.R. No. L-2996 March 6, 1950 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. PRECIANO MEJARES, ET AL.

    085 Phil 727

  • G.R. No. L-3463 March 6, 1950 - LEONCIO ROSARES v. DIRECTOR OF PRISONS

    085 Phil 730

  • G.R. No. L-2335 March 7, 1950 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. FRANCISCO MORENO

    085 Phil 731

  • G.R. No. L-3643 March 7, 950

    CARLOS C. ASPRA v. DIRECTOR OF PRISONS

    085 Phil 737

  • G.R. No. L-2269 March 14, 1950 - FABIAN B. S. ABELLERA v. NARCISO DE GUZMAN

    085 Phil 738

  • G.R. No. L-1990 March 15, 1950 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. LEONILO GANAL, ET AL.

    085 Phil 743

  • G.R. No. L-2809 March 22, 1950 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. FRISCO HOLGADO

    085 Phil 752

  • G.R. No. L-3022 March 22, 1950 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. PEDRO CABASA, ET AL

    085 Phil 758

  • G.R. No. L-3580 March 22, 1950 - CONRADO MELO v. PEOPLE OF THE PHIL., ET AL

    085 Phil 766

  • G.R. No. L-2217 March 23, 1950 - MIGUEL R. CORNEJO v. BIENVENIDO A. TAN

    085 Phil 772

  • G.R. No. L-2582 March 23, 1950 - TRINIDAD SEMIRA, ET AL v. JUAN ENRIQUEZ

    085 Phil 776

  • G.R. No. L-2981 March 23, 1950 - VISAYAN SURETY & INSURANCE CORP. v. VICTORIA PASCUAL, ET AL

    085 Phil 779

  • G.R. No. L-2434 March 25, 1950 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. MACABANTUG RANGON ET AL.

    085 Phil 786

  • G.R. No. L-2584 March 25, 1950 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. TEODORO BARRAMEDA

    085 Phil 789

  • G.R. No. L-2636 March 25, 1950 - YU SIP v. COURT OF APPEALS

    085 Phil 795

  • G.R. No. L-2784 March 25, 1950 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. GERARDO NARSOLIS ET AL.

    085 Phil 798

  • G.R. No. L-2856 March 27, 1950 - GO CAM v. Hon. MAGNO S. GATMAITAN, ET AL

    085 Phil 802

  • G.R. No. L-2743 March 29, 1950 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. SIXTO CANDELARIA

    085 Phil 805

  • G.R. No. L-836 March 30, 1950 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ANACLETO MAGDANG, ET AL

    085 Phil 807

  • G.R. No. L-1912 March 30, 1950 - EL PUEBLO DE FILIPINAS v. ANATOLIO LLENARIZAS

    085 Phil 809

  • G.R. No. L-2239 March 30, 1950 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. AURELIO SANTIAGO

    085 Phil 813

  • G.R. No. L-2275 March 30, 1950 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. SIMPLICIO MACASO, ET ALS.

    085 Phil 819

  • G.R. No. L-2288 March 30, 1950 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. MAXIMO MANOLONG

    085 Phil 829

  • G.R. No. L-2600 March 30, 1950 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. PEDRO MARAPAO

    085 Phil 832

  • G.R. No. L-2647 March 30, 1950 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. DIONISIO S. SERRANO

    085 Phil 835

  • G.R. No. L-2681 March 30, 1950 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. DARIO MARGEN, ET AL.

    085 Phil 839

  • G.R. No. L-2175 March 31, 1950 - NG GIOC LIU v. SECRETARY OF THE DFA

    085 Phil 842

  • G.R. No. L-2189 March 31, 1950 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. CILDO, ET AL

    085 Phil 845

  • G.R. No. L-2318 March 31, 1950 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. TEOFILO PAAR

    085 Phil 864

  • G.R. No. L-2405 March 31, 1950 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JUAN DE LOS SANTOS

    085 Phil 870

  • G.R. No. L-2801 March 31, 1950 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. PEDRO BELANDRES, ET AL.

    085 Phil 874

  • G.R. No. L-2880 March 31, 1950 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. DEMETRIO MOSTOLES, ET AL.

    085 Phil 883

  •  




     
     

    G.R. No. L-2665   March 6, 1950 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. FLORENTINO PATERNO, ET AL<br /><br />085 Phil 722

     
    PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

    FIRST DIVISION

    [G.R. No. L-2665. March 6, 1950.]

    THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. FLORENTINO PATERNO, ARADES LAGBAWAN, CERBESA MALIMBASAO, SARMIENTO PANGANAY, ENRIQUE LEMENTE and MANGAPA TALBIN, Defendants-Appellants.

    Pascual V. Garcia, Jr. for Appellants.

    First Assistant Solicitor General Roberto A. Gianzon and Solicitor Antonio A. Torres for Appellee.

    SYLLABUS


    1. CRIMINAL LAW; MURDER; EVIDENCE; FAILURE TO INTRODUCE IMPORTANT EVIDENCE. — It is unthinkable that evidence of vital importance to their defense, so vital as to be the sole point stressed by them in the court below and in this instance, should have been forgotten or withheld by all the accused, except two, for no other reason than fear of an absent, or dead, man.

    2. ID.; ID.; ID.; CERTIFIED TRUE COPIES OF CARBON COPIES, ADMISSIBILITY OF. — Certified true copies of carbon copies of the original of accused’s confessions, copies which were kept at the office of the justice of the peace, are admissible in evidence. The non-presentation of the copies which contained the defendants’ signatures was explained: the original had been destroyed by fire.

    3. ID.; ARSON; SETTING FIRE TO THE HOUSE WITH THE RESULTING DEATH OF A CHILD. — For setting fire to the house with the resulting death of the child, they are guilty of arson, not murder, under article 321, paragraph 1, of the Revised Penal Code. Murder or homicide is absorbed in arson as defined in this article. Murder or homicide in a judicial sense would exists if the killing were the objective of the malefactor and the burning of a building were resorted to only as the means of accomplishing his purpose. The rule is otherwise when arson is itself the end and death is a mere consequence.


    D E C I S I O N


    TUASON, J.:


    There is little or no dispute as to these facts. The appellants were members of an underground organization called volunteer guards. On February 8, 1943, while they and other volunteer guards were gathered at their camp in barrio Tagabakid, municipality of Mati, province of Davao, they were attacked by a Japanese patrol guided by Primo Jurolan and Demenciano Chavez. On the 12th, the appellants, with Ignacio Vicente, Tranqui Manapos and other volunteer guards, marched to Jurolan’s barrio, one or two kilometers distant from their camp, in search of the men who had betrayed them. Finding Jurolan and his wife, Delfina Gatillo, below their house, defendants Cerbesa Malimbasao, Arades Lagbawan and Sarmiento Panganay tied Jurolan’s hands behind his back and led him upstairs. Jurolan’s wife’s hands were similarly bound and she was taken into the house, but the identity of the accused who did this is not disclosed by the record. Inside the house, the couple were stabbed and killed with daggers, the husband by Arades Lagbawan and the wife by Enrique Lemente. When the victims were already dead, Mangapa Talbin set fire to the house with Jurolan’s three day-old live infant, as well as its parents’ lifeless bodies, inside, as the result of which the child perished in the fire. The accused took Jurolan’s two elder children out of the house before burning the house.

    The court below found the defendants guilty of murder for the death of Delfina Gatillo and sentenced Florentino Paterno to reclusion perpetua and his five co-defendants to an indeterminate penalty of from 10 years and 1 day to 17 years, 4 months and 1 day of reclusion temporal, and to indemnify the heirs of the deceased in the sum of P2,000. For the death of the child (no reference to the burning of the house was made) the court sentenced all the accused to reclusion perpetua and to pay an indemnity of P2,000 to its heirs. The accused were also condemned to pay proportionate shares of the costs. For the murder of Primo Jurolan, the defendants were pronounced entitled to the benefits of amnesty Proclamation No. 8 for the reason that Jurolan, as the court found, was a Japanese spy.

    The defendants’ plea on this appeal is that they acted in obedience to direct orders and threats of one Anselmo Onofre. It is alleged that they committed the crimes from fear of that man, fear of being themselves slain if they refused to comply. It is said that Onofre was the recognized overall commander of the defendants’ organization and that he was the only one who had a firearm, a .45 caliber pistol, the defendants being provided with no more weapons than bolos.

    The accused did not introduce any evidence on their behalf to substantiate their plea. They rested their case on the testimony of Ignacio Vicente and Tranqui Manapos, two of their companions who were used by the prosecution as witnesses.

    As the Solicitor General says in his brief, these witnesses turned hostile to the prosecution and testified virtually in favor of the appellants. Ignacio Vicente swore on direct examination that Paterno was the leader of the band and was the man who had Primo Jurolan and his wife killed and their house burned with their baby inside. But on cross-examination, in answer to very leading questions, he declared that Anselmo Onofre was their supreme commander and who ordered the slaying of the Jurolan couple and the destruction of their dwelling. The next witness for the prosecution, Tranqui Manapos, in his examination-in-chief declared in the same vein as Vicente did on cross-examination.

    It is to be noted that in these two witnesses’ affidavits, sworn to before the justice of the peace, and in their testimony before the provincial fiscal, not even a hint was made of Anselmo Onofre. For this reason the trial judge believes that what is contained in Vicente’s and Manapos’ affidavits is the truth and that in deviating from their previous statements their motive was no other than a desire to free Paterno from punishment. In this we concur. Vicente’s and Manapos’ explanation for not naming Onofre to the justice of the peace and the fiscal; that is, they were afraid of him, is unconvincing, since Onofre was not around when they made their statements — in fact Onofre’s whereabouts was unknown — and particularly since they were already in the custody and under the protection of peace officers. Moreover, the affidavits were made in June, 1946, when the war was over, complete peace and order had been restored and civil government re-established.

    The defendants themselves made written and sworn confessions before the same justice of the peace, and none of them, except Paterno and Lemente, implicated Onofre. More, these confessions were produced by the accused before the Amnesty Commission as the sole evidence on which they relied for their petition for discharge under the amnesty. It is unthinkable that evidence of vital importance to their defense, so vital as to be the sole point stressed by them in the court below and in this instance, should have been forgotten or withheld by all the accused, except two, for no other reason than fear of an absent, or dead, man.

    The defendants take exception to the admission of their confessions, introduced in evidence as Exhibits D, E, F, G and I, on the theory that they were mere copies. The objection is not well taken. The impugned exhibits are certified true copies of carbon copies of the original, copies which were kept at the office of the justice of the peace. The non-presentation of the copies which contained the defendants’ signatures was explained by the fiscal, who stated that the original had been destroyed by fire.

    Exhibits D to I, independent of Vicente’s and Manapos’ testimony, are in themselves conclusive proofs of appellants’ guilt. Their voluntary character has not been challenged. Although Paterno’s affidavit (Exhibit D) incriminates Onofre, yet it does not speak of compulsion or duress brought to bear on him or any of his fellow- defendants. So even if we should assume, for the sake of argument, that the crimes at bar were perpetrated by Onofre’s order, such order would not serve to justify or excuse appellants’ deeds.

    It was only Lemente, the accused who, besides Paterno, implicated Onofre, that made a statement which, if true, might exempt him from criminal responsibility with respect to the killing of Delfina Gatillo. Lemente stated in his affidavit that Onofre commanded him at the point of a pistol to kill Jurolan’s wife. But no credence can be given to this part of Lemente’s statement. There was absolutely no need for Onofre, granting that he was present, to force an unwilling tool to take the life of a defenseless woman when to do the killing himself would require less effort on his part than to threaten and intimidate a comrade.

    From the facts set forth in this decision, the appellants have been correctly found guilty of murder with reference to the slaying of Delfina Gatillo, but they had the same degree of participation in the crime and all should be sentenced to reclusion perpetua. For setting fire to the house with the resulting death of the child, they are guilty of arson, not murder, under article 321, paragraph 1, of the Revised Penal Code. Murder or homicide is absorbed in arson as defined in this article. Murder or homicide in a juridical sense would exist if the killing were the objective of the malefactor and the burning of a building were resorted to only as the means of accomplishing his purpose. The rule is otherwise when arson, as in this case, is itself the end and death is a mere consequence. However, the punishment imposed by the trial court for this act is correct in view of all the circumstances. The indemnity for Delfina Gatillo’s and her baby’s death should be raised to P6,000 each. With these modifications, the appealed decision is affirmed, with costs of the appeal charged against the appellants in equal share.

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

    G.R. No. L-2665   March 6, 1950 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. FLORENTINO PATERNO, ET AL<br /><br />085 Phil 722




    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