April 1903 - Philippine Supreme Court Decisions/Resolutions
Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence
Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1903 > April 1903 Decisions >
G.R. No. 1113 April 15, 1903 - UNITED STATES v. PEDRO ABUAN, ET AL.
002 Phil 130:
002 Phil 130:
EN BANC
[G.R. No. 1113. April 15, 1903. ]
THE UNITED STATES, Complainant-Appellee, v. PEDRO ABUAN, ET AL., Defendants-Appellants.
E. H . White for Appellants.
Solicitor-General Araneta for Appellee.
SYLLABUS
1. CRIMINAL PROCEDURE; COMPLAINT. — Section 90 of the Code of Civil Procedure has no application to criminal actions.
2. CRIMINAL LAW; PRESUMPTION. — The nonappearance of an eyewitness does not raise any presumption unless it appears that his testimony was willfully suppressed.
3. CRIMINAL PROCEDURE; PRELIMINARY HEARING. — The preliminary hearing is no part of the record on appeal, and contradictions in the statements of witness or irregularities in the proceedings must be proved at the trial in order to be availed of.
2. CRIMINAL LAW; PRESUMPTION. — The nonappearance of an eyewitness does not raise any presumption unless it appears that his testimony was willfully suppressed.
3. CRIMINAL PROCEDURE; PRELIMINARY HEARING. — The preliminary hearing is no part of the record on appeal, and contradictions in the statements of witness or irregularities in the proceedings must be proved at the trial in order to be availed of.
D E C I S I O N
WILLARD, J. :chanrob1es virtual 1aw library
1. Of the fourteen assignments of error made by the counsel for the defendants, the first four relate to the complaint. Though it is said that the complaint is unintelligible and ambiguous, the defendant’s counsel nowhere states in what respect it is ambiguous. We see no such defects and hold the complaint sufficient.
2. That the complaint is not drawn in conformity with section 90 of the Code of Civil Procedure is not important. That section refers to civil actions.
3. That Severina Lomboy, an eyewitness of the robbery, did not testify is no ground for a new trial. General Orders, No. 58, section 15, gives to the defendants compulsory process for obtaining witnesses. If they wished the testimony of this witness, they should have called her themselves. It does not been dead or absent. In order that the presumption mentioned in section 334, paragraph 5, of the Code of Civil Procedure may be operative, it must appear that the testimony was willfully suppressed. That does not appear in this case.
4. Assignments of error 7, 10 and 11 relate to the sufficiency of the evidence and the credibility of the witnesses. We are of the opinion that the evidence is sufficient to support the conviction.
5. We have frequently said that the proceedings before the justice of the peace in the preliminary hearing are not a part of the record of the trial Court of First Instance simply because they are found among the papers sent to this court. If the defendants claimed that the witnesses testified differently in the Court of First Instance from what they did before the justice of the peace, they should have proved in the Court of First Instance what was the testimony of the witnesses before the justice. So, if it is claimed that any proceedings before the justice were irregular, proof of this irregularity should have been made before the Court of First Instance, so as to have properly incorporated in the record of the case in that court the proceedings before the justice. Nothing of this kind was done in this case. This dipsoses of the assignments of error 8, 9, 12 and 13.
The judgment of the court below imposed a fine of 25 pesos upon the defendants. As the law does not authorize a fine in this class of crimes, we assumed that it was intended as indemnity to the party injured and we so make it. With this modification the judgment below is affirmed with cost of this instance against the defendants.
Arellano, C.J., Cooper, Mapa and Ladd, JJ., concur.
Torres and McDonough, JJ., did not sit in this case.
1. Of the fourteen assignments of error made by the counsel for the defendants, the first four relate to the complaint. Though it is said that the complaint is unintelligible and ambiguous, the defendant’s counsel nowhere states in what respect it is ambiguous. We see no such defects and hold the complaint sufficient.
2. That the complaint is not drawn in conformity with section 90 of the Code of Civil Procedure is not important. That section refers to civil actions.
3. That Severina Lomboy, an eyewitness of the robbery, did not testify is no ground for a new trial. General Orders, No. 58, section 15, gives to the defendants compulsory process for obtaining witnesses. If they wished the testimony of this witness, they should have called her themselves. It does not been dead or absent. In order that the presumption mentioned in section 334, paragraph 5, of the Code of Civil Procedure may be operative, it must appear that the testimony was willfully suppressed. That does not appear in this case.
4. Assignments of error 7, 10 and 11 relate to the sufficiency of the evidence and the credibility of the witnesses. We are of the opinion that the evidence is sufficient to support the conviction.
5. We have frequently said that the proceedings before the justice of the peace in the preliminary hearing are not a part of the record of the trial Court of First Instance simply because they are found among the papers sent to this court. If the defendants claimed that the witnesses testified differently in the Court of First Instance from what they did before the justice of the peace, they should have proved in the Court of First Instance what was the testimony of the witnesses before the justice. So, if it is claimed that any proceedings before the justice were irregular, proof of this irregularity should have been made before the Court of First Instance, so as to have properly incorporated in the record of the case in that court the proceedings before the justice. Nothing of this kind was done in this case. This dipsoses of the assignments of error 8, 9, 12 and 13.
The judgment of the court below imposed a fine of 25 pesos upon the defendants. As the law does not authorize a fine in this class of crimes, we assumed that it was intended as indemnity to the party injured and we so make it. With this modification the judgment below is affirmed with cost of this instance against the defendants.
Arellano, C.J., Cooper, Mapa and Ladd, JJ., concur.
Torres and McDonough, JJ., did not sit in this case.
