Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1905 > April 1905 Decisions > G.R. No. 1800 April 24, 1905 - UNITED STATES v. FERMIN GREGORIO

004 Phil 443:




PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

EN BANC

[G.R. No. 1800. April 24, 1905. ]

THE UNITED STATES, Complainant-Appellee, v. FERMIN GREGORIO AND ANTONIO DURAL, Defendants-Appellants.

Teodoro Gonzalez, for Appellants.

Solicitor-General Araneta, for Appellee.

SYLLABUS


1. CRIMINAL PROCEDURE; ROBBERY; EVIDENCE. — The statement made by the injured party that she knew one of the defendants at the time the crime was committed, together with the fact that some of the stolen articles were found in his possession, is sufficient proof of the guilt of the defendant.

2. ID.; EVIDENCE; CONFESSION; ADMISSIBILITY. — The statement made by a witness that the defendants confessed to him to have committed the crime charged against them can not be taken as proof of a confession if it is not also known that such confession was made, and that it was made voluntarily and spontaneously, and is not, furthermore, corroborated by those to whom the witness refers as having been present at the time the confession was made.

3. ID.; ID.; CONTRADICTORY STATEMENTS. — When the offended party on testifying on the witness stand has made contradictory statements in regard to the fact of having identified one of two defendants at the time of the robbery, her testimony has no probatory force to establish the guilt of that defendant, and therefore, there being no other incriminating data against him, he should be acquitted.


D E C I S I O N


MAPA, J. :


The evidence leaves no room for doubt as to the commission of the robbery charged. Some of the stolen effects were introduced in evidence as incriminating evidence on the trial of the case. The question is confined to the determination of the guilt of the defendants.

Against Fermin Gregorio there is the statement of the injured party, who affirms having identified him at the time of the robbery, and the fact that the watch of the witness’s husband, which was one of the articles stolen, was found in the possession of the accused. These facts are sufficient to prove the guilt of said defendant. He tried to explain the fact of being in possession of the watch by saying that he had bought it from one Marcelo. A witness corroborates this assertion, but his statement does not convince us in any manner. He states that he witnessed the purchase, because Fermin Gregorio asked him to see and identify the watch, but in cross-examination, on being questioned if he did, in fact, recognize it, he answered "No." It seems to us quite doubtful that having witnessed the purchase for the only and solitary purpose of being able to recognize the watch, that he could not have been able to make such identification. This witness, furthermore, does not say a single word about the price and all the other details of the purchase. These details should necessarily have been known to him had he really witnessed the purchase.

In order to decide the guilt of the defendant Fermin Gregorio we do not take into consideration at all the statement of the inspector of the Constabulary, Lorenzo Ramos, as regards the fact that the defendants told him they were the principals in the robbery, which is charged against them. In speaking about this statement, the judge below said:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"The court does not accept this as proof of the confession, because it has not been shown that such confession was made, nor that it had been made voluntarily and spontaneously; the more so, since this statement is not corroborated by the spies, Domingo Arellano and Bastian Lanoso, to whom the witness refers as having been present at the time the confession were made."cralaw virtua1aw library

In accordance with this consideration of the court below, and which is directly in accordance with the facts of the case, we do not give any value to the testimony of the witness Ramos.

As regards the other appellant, Antonio Dural, if we discard, as we do, the testimony of the witness Lorenzo Ramos, for the reasons above stated, there are no other data incriminating the defendants than the affirmation made at the trial by the injured party of having identified him at the time of the robbery. However, that same injured party did not identify, in the preliminary hearing, this defendant. She only identified Fermin Gregorio, notwithstanding the fact that both defendants were presented to her for identification, as appears from the testimony of the injured party in said hearing, which declaration was presented as evidence for the defense on the trial of this case. Furthermore, when she gave her testimony at the trial she was questioned on cross-examination by the attorney for the defendant, in the following terms: "Is it true or not that you told the justice of the peace that you only identified Gregorio?" to which she answered, "Yes sir; but I used to know both of them." If this were true, and if she really knew both defendants, we can not understand why she testified in the justice-of-the-peace court under oath that she only identified Fermin Gregorio. Because of this contradiction we can not consider it established beyond reasonable doubt that the injured party identified the defendant Dural at the time of the robbery.

None of the articles stolen were found in the possession of this defendant. The earring which the policeman found in his possession was not identified by the injured party as belonging to her. There is, then, no incriminating evidence to establish this defendant’s guilt and he is, therefore, entitled to be acquitted.

We affirm the judgment appealed from as regards Fermin Gregorio, with one-half the costs against him. We reverse it as regards Antonio Dural, whom we freely acquit, declaring the rest of the costs in both instances corresponding to this defendant de oficio. So ordered.

Arellano, C.J., Torres, Johnson and Carson, JJ., concur.




Back to Home | Back to Main




















chanrobles.com





ChanRobles On-Line Bar Review

ChanRobles Internet Bar Review : www.chanroblesbar.com

ChanRobles MCLE On-line

ChanRobles Lawnet Inc. - ChanRobles MCLE On-line : www.chanroblesmcleonline.com






April-1905 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. 1375 April 1, 1905 - UNITED STATES v. PACIFICO GONZAGA

    004 Phil 364

  • G.R. No. 1703 April 1, 1905 - UNITED STATES v. EUSEBIO CAPADUCIA

    004 Phil 365

  • G.R. No. 1760 April 3, 1905 - UNITED STATES v. IRINEO BIBAL

    004 Phil 369

  • G.R. No. 1988 April 3, 1905 - UNITED STATES v. MARCELO CAPARAS

    004 Phil 370

  • G.R. No. 1530 April 4, 1905 - UNITED STATES v. VENANCIO SANTOS

    004 Phil 373

  • G.R. No. 1683 April 5, 1905 - UNITED STATES v. ANTONIO VIZQUERA

    004 Phil 380

  • G.R. No. 1487 April 6, 1905 - UNITED STATES v. ISMAEL TAN-SECO

    004 Phil 382

  • G.R. No. 1504 April 8, 1905 - UNITED STATES v. ROBERT L. HIGHFILL

    004 Phil 384

  • G.R. No. 1540 April 8, 1905 - UNITED STATES v. VICTOR RAMOS, ET AL.

    004 Phil 389

  • G.R. No. 1537 April 8, 1905 - UNITED STATES v. GERONIMO MILLA

    004 Phil 391

  • G.R. No. 1862 April 8, 1905 - UNITED STATES v. JULIAN DAGALEA

    004 Phil 398

  • G.R. No. 1647 April 11, 1905 - UNITED STATES v. ADAUSTO OCAMPO

    004 Phil 400

  • G.R. No. 1897 April 11, 1905 - UNITED STATES v. POLICARPO AQUINO

    004 Phil 402

  • G.R. No. 1953 April 11, 1905 - UNITED STATES v. PAULINO FUENTES, ET AL.

    004 Phil 404

  • G.R. No. 1588 April 12, 1905 - UNITED STATES v. ANTONIO SAN PEDRO

    004 Phil 405

  • G.R. No. 1939 April 13, 1905 - UNITED STATES v. GUILLERMO MACALINAO

    004 Phil 407

  • G.R. No. 1714 April 14, 1905 - UNITED STATES v. ESTEBAN LOGARIO, ET AL.

    004 Phil 411

  • G.R. No. 1899 April 14, 1905 - UNITED STATES v. RUFINO MAGSAMBOL

    004 Phil 413

  • G.R. No. 2092 April 15, 1905 - UNITED STATES v. GONZALEZ ET AL.

    004 Phil 414

  • G.R. No. 2200 April 15, 1905 - UNITED STATES v. PANTALEON CANTIL

    004 Phil 418

  • G.R. No. 1557 April 17, 1905 - UNITED STATES v. AMADO SANTOS

    004 Phil 419

  • G.R. No. 1943 April 17, 1905 - UNITED STATES v. BENITO SANTA ANA

    004 Phil 421

  • G.R. No. 2134 April 17, 1905 - UNITED STATES v. CAGAYAN ET AL.

    004 Phil 424

  • G.R. No. 1486 April 18, 1905 - UNITED STATES v. FLORENCIO RACINES, ET AL.

    004 Phil 427

  • G.R. No. 1727 April 18, 1905 - UNITED STATES v. JULIO DE LA CRUZ, ET AL.

    004 Phil 430

  • G.R. No. 2170 April 18, 1905 - UNITED STATES v. JUAN CADAY

    004 Phil 431

  • G.R. No. 2176 April 18, 1905 - UNITED STATES v. CANDIDO FULGUERAS

    004 Phil 432

  • G.R. No. 1661 April 19, 1905 - UNITED STATES v. FELICIANO VILLAROSA

    004 Phil 434

  • G.R. No. 1755 April 19, 1905 - UNITED STATES v. SANTIAGO DE LA CRUZ, ET AL.

    004 Phil 438

  • G.R. No. 1773 April 19, 1905 - UNITED STATES v. HILARIO SANTIAGO, ET AL.

    004 Phil 439

  • G.R. No. 2000 April 19, 1905 - UNITED STATES v. VICENTE LIM TICO, ET AL.

    004 Phil 440

  • G.R. No. 2198 April 19, 1905 - UNITED STATES v. SILVERIO NUÑEZ

    004 Phil 441

  • G.R. No. 1800 April 24, 1905 - UNITED STATES v. FERMIN GREGORIO

    004 Phil 443

  • G.R. No. 1871 April 24, 1905 - UNTIED STATES v. FLORENTINO RALLOS

    004 Phil 446

  • G.R. No. 1881 April 25, 1905 - UNITED STATES v. EUSEBIO DE LA SERNA, ET AL.

    004 Phil 448

  • G.R. No. 1925 April 25, 1905 - UNITED STATES v. TOMAS CANETA

    004 Phil 450

  • G.R. No. 2029 April 25, 1905 - UNITED STATES v. CHAUNCEY MCGOVERN

    004 Phil 451

  • G.R. No. 2032 April 25, 1905 - UNITED STATES v. ANTONIO NUBLA

    004 Phil 456

  • G.R. No. 2052 April 25, 1905 - UNITED STATES vs LICAS

    004 Phil 458

  • G.R. No. 2062 April 25, 1905 - UNITED STATES ET AL. v. AGUSTINA BARRERA

    004 Phil 461

  • G.R. No. 2139 April 25, 1905 - UNITED STATES v. ENRICO ILAO

    004 Phil 463

  • G.R. No. 2245 April 25, 1905 - UNITED STATES v. FRANCISCO JAVATE

    004 Phil 465

  • G.R. No. 1910 April 26, 1905 - UNITED STATES v. ROMAN GUSTILO

    004 Phil 466

  • G.R. No. 1930 April 26, 1905 - UNITED STATES v. MARGARITO ACABAL, ET AL.

    004 Phil 467

  • G.R. No. 2118 April 26, 1905 - UNITED STATES v. PABLO VALDEHUEZA

    004 Phil 470

  • G.R. No. 2231 April 26, 1905 - UNITED STATES v. EVARISTO PAYNAGA

    004 Phil 472

  • G.R. No. 2374 April 26, 1905 - RUBERT & GUAMIS v. JOHN C. SWEENEY

    004 Phil 473

  • G.R. No. 1181 April 27, 1905 - UNITED STATES v. ENGRACIO VILLAFUERTE

    004 Phil 476

  • G.R. No. 1612 April 27, 1905 - UNITED STATES v. GEORGE GRAY

    004 Phil 479

  • G.R. No. 1707 April 27, 1905 - UNITED STATES v. JUAN QUILATAN, ET AL.

    004 Phil 481

  • G.R. No. 1932 April 27, 1905 - UNITED STATES v. MARIANO PANGANIBAN, ET AL.

    004 Phil 483

  • G.R. No. 1650 April 28, 1905 - UNITED STATES v. LINO LITONJUA, ET AL.

    004 Phil 485

  • G.R. No. 1090 April 29, 1905 - UNITED STATES v. TORIBIO GONZALEZ

    004 Phil 487

  • G.R. No. 1633 April 29, 1905 - NICOLAS CEPILLO CRUZ v. CHINAMAN CO-CUACO

    004 Phil 489

  • G.R. No. 1766 April 29, 1905 - UNITED STATES v. JUAN ANGEL MICHELENA

    004 Phil 492

  • G.R. No. 1877 April 29, 1905 - UNITED STATES v. RICARDO GUTIERREZ

    004 Phil 493

  • G.R. No. 1934 April 29, 1905 - UNITED STATES v. JUAN DE LEON, ET AL.

    004 Phil 496

  • G.R. No. 1981 April 29, 1905 - UNITED STATES v. ANSELMO DIRIS, ET AL.

    004 Phil 498

  • G.R. No. 1984 April 29, 1905 - UNITED STATES v. GREGORIO HERNANDEZ, ET AL.

    004 Phil 499

  • G.R. No. 1998 April 29, 1905 - UNITED STATES v. ANASTASIO REDION

    004 Phil 500

  • G.R. No. 2057 April 29, 1905 - UNITED STATES v. ADRIANO CONCEPCION

    004 Phil 501

  • G.R. No. 2158 April 29, 1905 - UNITED STATES v. JULIAN BUDIAO, ET AL.

    004 Phil 502