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-1964 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. L-17812 May 20, 1964 - CIPRIANO DEFENSOR v. HON. RAMON BLANCO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-17212 May 23, 1964 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. LT. ALCANTARA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-18763-64 May 23, 1964 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. EFREN MARTIN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-19562 May 23, 1964 - JOSE SERRANO v. LUIS SERRANO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-16217 May 25, 1964 - ALFONSO DE LOS REYES, ET AL. v. LUIS DE LEON

  • G.R. No. L-18783 May 25, 1964 - GENEROSO BAJE, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-18978 May 25, 1964 - MANUEL MORATA v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. L-19273-74 May 25, 1964 - STA. CECILIA SAWMILLS, INC. v. COURT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. L-19273-74 May 25, 1964 - STA.CECILIA SAWMILLS, INC. v. COURT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS

  • G.R. No. L-19566 May 25, 1964 - REMELA ZALDARRIAGA, ET AL. v. ENRIQUE F. MARIÑO

  • G.R. No. L-19756 May 25, 1964 - ALEJANDRA ESQUIVEL-CABATIT, ET AL. v. COURT OF AGRARIAN RELATIONS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-19849 May 25, 1964 - COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE v. OLIMPIO LIMLINGAN, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. L-20614 and L-21517 May 25, 1964 - PHIL. RABBIT BUS LINES, INC. v. WORKMEN’S COMPENSATION COMM., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-15998 May 26, 1964 - GUILLERMO ANTONIO IVANOVICH v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. L-18079 May 26, 1964 - MACONDRAY & CO., INC. v. BERNARDO S. DUNGAO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-18264 May 26, 1964 - MANILA RAILROAD CO. v. WORKMEN’S COMPENSATION COMM., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-15308 May 29, 1964 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ROBERTO BOYLES, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-16086 May 29, 1964 - M. RUIZ HIGHWAY TRANSIT, INC., ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-16857 May 29, 1964 - MARCELO CASTILLO, JR., ET AL. v. MACARIA PASCO

  • G.R. No. L-17639 May 29, 1964 - CESAR PABLO OBESO BEDUYA v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. L-18203 May 29, 1964 - MANUEL DE LARA v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. L-18282 May 29, 1964 - COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE v. PRISCILA ESTATE, INC., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-18450 May 29, 1964 - LU DO, ET AL. v. PHIL. LAND-AIR-SEA LABOR UNION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-18777 May 29, 1964 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. DIONISIO CONDE, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-18808 May 29, 1964 - ACE PUBLICATION, INC. v. COMM. OF CUSTOMS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-19060 May 20, 1964 - IGNACIO GERONA, ET AL. v. CARMEN DE GUZMAN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-19252 May 29, 1964 - TUMIPUS MANGAYAO, ET AL. v. QUINTANA LASUD, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-19265 May 29, 1964 - MOISES SAN DIEGO, SR. v. ADELO NOMBRE, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-19555 May 29, 1964 - MATEO DE RAMAS v. COURT OF AGRARIAN RELATIONS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-22193 May 29, 1964 - LAGUNA TAYABAS BUS CO. v. JULIETA CORNISTA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-22696 May 29, 1964 - COMM. OF IMMIGRATION v. HON. F. FERNANDEZ, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-10774 May 30, 1964 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. OSCAR CASTELO, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. L-6025 & L-6026 May 30, 1964 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. AMADO V. HERNANDEZ, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-15056 May 30, 1964 - M. S. GALUTERA v. MAERSK LINE, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-16315 May 30, 1964 - COMM. OF INTERNAL REVENUE v. HAWAIIAN-PHILIPPINE COMPANY

  • G.R. No. L-16547 May 30, 1964 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. MODESTO ANTONIO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-16569 May 30, 1964 - PHIL. ENGINEERING CORP. v. AMADO FLORENTINO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-16975 May 30, 1964 - IN RE: ROMULO QUA v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. L-17774 May 30, 1964 - IN RE: CEFERINO GO v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. L-18476 May 30, 1964 - PHIL. LAND-AIR-SEA LABOR UNION, ET AL. v. SY INDONG CO. RICE & CORN MILL, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-18758 May 30, 1964 - DY PEK LONG v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. Nos. 18767 and L-18789-90 May 30, 1964 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. MADRIGAL TORINO

  • G.R. No. L-19569 May 30, 1964 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. LORENZANA YUMANG

  • G.R. No. L-19749 May 30, 1964 - MONICO CRUZ v. CAMILO PANGAN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-19773 May 30, 1964 - MANILA RAILROAD CO. v. WORKMEN’S COMPENSATION COMM., ET AL.

  •  





     
     

    G.R. No. L-18777   May 29, 1964 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. DIONISIO CONDE, ET AL.

     
    PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

    EN BANC

    [G.R. No. L-18777. May 29, 1964.]

    THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. DIONISIO CONDE, alias BENITO, ET AL., Defendants, DIONISIO CONDE, alias BENITO, Defendant-Appellant.

    Solicitor General for Plaintiff-Appellee.

    Protacio B. Manayon, for Defendant-Appellant.


    SYLLABUS


    1. CRIMINAL EVIDENCE; CORROBORATED TESTIMONY OF CO-CONSPIRATOR CARRIES MORE WEIGHT THAN UNCORROBORATED TESTIMONY OF APPELLANT. — Where the appellant’s testimony is absolutely uncorroborated, not having presented even his common-law wife to bear him out, it is held that the version of his co-conspirator, corroborated in several aspects by the witnesses for the prosecution and even by another co-defendant, carries more weight, especially where there was no motive for said co-conspirator to falsely implicate the Appellant.

    2. CRIMINAL LAW; MITIGATING CIRCUMSTANCE OF LACK OF INTENTION TO COMMIT SO GRAVE A WRONG; REFUTED BY THE SUPPLYING OF A GUN TO A MEMBER OF THE BAND. — The benefit of mitigating circumstance No. 3 of Article 13 of the Revised Penal Code may not be granted merely because "it is within the realm of possibility" that appellant not being physically present at the scene of the occurrence — "had no intention to commit so grave a wrong as that actually committed by the armed band," where this surmise is refuted by the circumstance that each one of the members of the band carried firearms and that the gun of one of them was supplied by the very appellant.


    D E C I S I O N


    CONCEPCION, J.:


    This is an appeal, taken by defendant Dionisio Conde, from a decision of the Court of First Instance of Pangasinan convicting him and Felipe Ortiz, as principal by induction and principal by cooperation, respectively of the crime of robbery in band with homicide, and sentencing each to life imprisonment, with the corresponding accessory penalties, and to indemnify, jointly and severally, the heirs of the deceased Mariano Raquiza in the sum of P6,000.00, without subsidiary imprisonment, in case of insolvency, as well as to pay the proportional part of the costs.

    In the evening of April 19-20, 1958, shortly after midnight, several men carrying firearms broke into a warehouse in the "hacienda" of Lourdes Sison at Capangasinan, Sto. Domingo, San Manuel, Pangasinan, where Florencio Imbuido, Alfonso, Landayan, and Rodolfo Ganancial were asleep. One of the malefactors approached Ganancial, hit him on the abdomen and forcibly took away from him a P20.00 bill. The other intruders brought Florencio Imbuido with them to the house of Mariano Raquiza nearby. Upon reaching its door, they bade Florencio to open it, but he was unable to do so, because the door was locked, whereupon, the robbers kicked it open. As Raquiza inquired from inside the house as to who were those coming in, one of the thieves fired at him. Then they ran away. When peace officers repaired to the scene of the occurrence soon later, that same morning, they found Mariano Raquiza dead with a gunshot wound at the nape of the neck.

    Several months later, Felipe Ortiz, Dionisio Conde and Dominador Bermudez were picked up by the authorities. On October 9, 1958, Bermudez and Ortiz swore before the Justice of the Peace of San Manuel, Pangasinan, to the truth of the contents of their respective affidavits, Exhibits A and D, which led to the filing with said officer of a complaint for robbery in band with homicide against them and said Dionisio Conde, alias Benito, alias Pedro Penduco, Dioscoro Flores, alias Porong, Julian Galamgam, alias Esco, and Andres Dolor, alias Dares. Thereafter, Galamgam was arrested, but Flores and Dolor were never apprehended. After entering in the justice of the peace court a plea of not guilty, Conde, Galamgam, Bermudez and Ortiz waived the right to the second stage of the preliminary investigation, and upon transmittal of the record to the Court of First Instance of Pangasinan, the corresponding information for robbery in band with homicide was filed therein against Conde, Flores, Galamgam, Dolor, Bermudez and Ortiz. Before the case could be heard, Galamgam had, however, jumped bail. Moreover, on motion of the prosecution, Bermudez was duly discharged from the information in order to be a state witness. Hence, the case was tried only as regards Conde and Ortiz. In due course, thereafter, the lower court rendered the aforementioned decision, which, likewise, dismissed the case insofar as Dioscoro Flores, there being evidence to the effect that he had died of gunshot wounds on November 3, 1960. Further proceedings as regards Galamgam and Dolor were suspended until they shall have been apprehended.

    The commission of the crime of robbery in band, as charged in the information, has been duly established by the testimony of Rodolfo Ganancial, Florencio Imbuido, and Daniel Raquiza, son of the late Mariano Raquiza, who were partly corroborated by the testimony of Dominador Bermudez and Felipe Ortiz. The first three (3) witnesses were unable, however, to recognize any of the malefactors; whereas, the only direct proof of the participation of Conde in the perpetration of said offense is the testimony of Bermudez. As a consequence, this appeal hinges on the sufficiency of the evidence against appellant Conde.

    In this connection, Bermudez testified that on April 20, 1958, at about 1:00 a.m., he and his co-defendants Flores, Galamgam, Dolor, Ortiz and one nicknamed Junior, proceeded from the sitio of Cabete, barrio Narra, Municipality of San Manuel, Province of Pangasinan, to the sitio of Capangasinan, barrio Sto. Domingo, of the same municipality, for the purpose of committing a robbery in the latter place, following orders given by their leader, appellant Dionisio Conde; that the latter excused himself from going with the group to Capangasinan, by saying that his wife was then sick; that Conde, however, placed the group under the command of Flores, who was armed with a carbine; that Junior had a" .45", whereas Galamgam and Dolor were provided with "pitbongs" (Japanese rifles), and Conde had given Bermudez a" .38" ; that upon reaching the "hacienda" of Lourdes Sison in Capangasinan, Bermudez and Ortiz were ordered by Flores to stand guard near the aforementioned warehouse, as Flores, Galamgam, Dolor and Junior entered the same and then the house nearby; that soon thereafter, a shot rang inside the house; that, thereupon, Flores came out and bade his companions to flee, because he had fired at someone, that as they were nearing the town proper, Flores gave Bermudez P1.00, stating that the group had been unable to get anything, and took the gun from Bermudez; and that then they parted ways.chanroblesvirtual|awlibrary

    As above stated, this story was partly corroborated by Ortiz. He admitted that he went with the aforementioned group to the scene of the occurrence; that, while he and Bermudez were standing near the warehouse already adverted to, he heard the report of a gun; and that, forthwith, he ran away. However, he claimed to have gone to said place under the belief that the group would merely serenade somebody.

    Upon the other hand, the only evidence for appellant Conde in his own testimony, denying any participation whatsoever in the commission of the crime charged or knowing any of his co-defendants herein — except Bermudez — before the occurrence. Conde averred that the whole evening of April 19-20, 1958, was spent by him in the house of his common-law wife. Erlinda Santos, in the barrio of Matatalahib, Tarlac, Tarlac, and that he had not left that province ever since he had escaped from the provincial jail of Ilocos Sur, several months before, the Court of First Instance of which province had convicted him by final judgment of the crime of homicide, and sentenced him to imprisonment from twelve (12) years to twenty (20) years.

    Thus, the issue before us boils down to whether appellant’s testimony deserves more credence than that of Bermudez. His Honor, the trial Judge found otherwise, and the record before us warrants no interference in this finding. Indeed appellant’s testimony is absolutely uncorroborated. He did not even present his common-law wife to bear him out. Upon the other hand, the version of Bermudez was corroborated in several respects by the witnesses for the prosecution and even by defendant Felipe Ortiz. What is more, appellant admitted that he knew of no reason why Bermudez should falsely implicate him. Furthermore, the fact that they knew each other since childhood suggests that they were good friends.

    The lower court gave appellant the benefit of mitigating circumstance No. 3 of Article 13 of the Revised Penal Code, merely because "it is within the realm of possibility" that he — not being physically present at the scene of the occurrence — "had no intention to commit so grave a wrong as that actually committed by the armed band" above mentioned. This surmise is refuted, however, by the circumstance, not only that each one of the members of the band carried firearms, but, also, that the gun of Bermudez was supplied by the very Appellant.

    Considering that the crime was committed by a band and at nighttime, which, obviously, had been sought purposely, the penalty prescribed for the offense charged and committed — which is life imprisonment to death (Article 294, paragraph 1) — should be imposed to its maximum period, although, for lack of the number of votes necessary therefor, the penalty next lower in degree, which is that meted out by the lower court, is the one in order.

    WHEREFORE, the decision appealed from is hereby affirmed, with the cost of this instance against appellant Dionisio Conde. It is so ordered.

    Bengzon, C.J., Bautista Angelo, Reyes, J.B.L., Barrera, Paredes, Regala and Makalintal, JJ., concur.

    Padilla, Labrador and Dizon, JJ., took no part.

    G.R. No. L-18777   May 29, 1964 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. DIONISIO CONDE, ET AL.


    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