Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence

Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1905 > December 1905 Decisions > G.R. No. 2075 December 20, 1905 - UNITED STATES v. VICTOR QUIAMSON

005 Phil 444:



[G.R. No. 2075. December 20, 1905. ]

THE UNITED STATES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. VICTOR QUIAMSON, Defendant-Appellant.

Pineda & Escueta, for Appellant.

Solicitor-General Araneta, for Appellee.


1. CRIMINAL PROCEDURE; TESTIMONY BY AN ACCOMPLICE. — The testimony of accomplices should be closely and doubtingly examined, and received with great caution.



The accused in this case was convicted of the crime of brigandage, as defined and penalized in section 4 of Act No. 518 of the Philippine Commission.

Evidence was introduced by the prosecution which tended to show that between the months of August, 1902, and April, 1903, the accused was in communication with the bandits who at that time infested the Province of Cavite, aiding them by furnishing supplies and information; and that in the month of April, 1903, the accused set such information to the band of brigands under the command of Montalan that they were enabled to enter and sack the town of Silang on an occasion when the detachment of Constabulary usually stationed there was temporarily absent; and that on this occasion the accused joined the bandits in person and aided and assisted them in looting the town.

The defense introduced evidence to prove that at the time when the accused is charged with giving aid and assistance to the bandits, he was in fact acting as local commander of the volunteers of the town of Silang, who were organized under the direction and control of the provincial governor for the purpose of combating and suppressing the brigand and ladrone movement in the Province of Cavite, and testimony was introduced which, if it be accepted as true, would prove that on the occasion of the aid attack on the town of Silang the accused was absent visiting friends in the town of Imus.

If we could implicitly rely upon the testimony of the witnesses for the prosecution there would be no doubt of the guilt of the accused, aggravated by his betrayal of the confidence and trust imposed, upon him by his acceptance of the obligation resulting from his appointment as chief of the volunteers of Silang. It appears, however, that all the important witnesses for the Government were either officers and soldiers or secret-service men in the pay of the Constabulary, and that the complaining witness, who instituted these proceedings, was one Estrella, a lieutenant of Constabulary, between whom and the accused there existed a state of deadly enmity, the accused, prior to the filing of this charge, having been instrumental in the institution of criminal proceedings against Estrella on the charge of the assassination of a prisoner. Furthermore, the evidence as to the more essential allegations which tend to prove the guilt of the accused rests almost exclusively on the testimony of informers, themselves prisoners in the hands of the Constabulary and charged with the very crime of which the accused was convicted, so that if full faith and credit be not given to their testimony there is nothing in the record which would prove that the accused had any relations with the brigands which might not readily be explained by the faithful and conscientious performance of his duties as chief of volunteers.

In view of the deadly hatred which existed between the complaining witness and the accused, and in view of the character of the witnesses for the prosecution and of their defendant relation to the accuser, we do not think that their testimony should be accepted without conclusive corroborative evidence in support of their statements. We do not find such corroborative evidence in the record, and, on the contrary, evidence was introduced by the defense which tends to prove that the accused was not in the town of Silang at the time of the alleged attack, and that at the time when he was charged with aiding and assisting the brigands he was actually engaged in an effort to capture and suppress them, under the order and direction of the provincial governor.

The evidence in the record is not sufficient to sustain a finding of the guilt of the accused, and the judgment and sentence appealed from should be reversed, and the accused acquitted of the crime with which he is charged, and the bond for his appearance canceled, with the costs of both instances de oficio. Judgment will be entered in accordance herewith and the record returned forthwith to the trial court. So ordered.

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

Back to Home | Back to Main

ChanRobles Professional Review, Inc.

ChanRobles Professional Review, Inc. :
ChanRobles On-Line Bar Review

ChanRobles Internet Bar Review :
ChanRobles CPA Review Online

ChanRobles CPALE Review Online :
ChanRobles Special Lecture Series

ChanRobles Special Lecture Series - Memory Man :

December-1905 Jurisprudence                 


    005 Phil 360

  • G.R. No. 1638 December 2, 1905 - ANTONIO IRIBAR, ET AL. v. MILLAT

    005 Phil 362

  • G.R. No. 2273 December 4, 1905 - UNITED STATES v. FRANCIS J. BERRY

    005 Phil 370

  • G.R. No. 1594 December 5, 1905 - UNITED STATES v. SILVINO ROXAS

    005 Phil 375

  • G.R. No. 2168 December 5, 1905 - UNITED STATES v. BLAS CASAÑAS

    005 Phil 377

  • G.R. No. 2354 December 5, 1905 - GEORGE W. SIMMIE v. H. BRODEK

    005 Phil 379

  • G.R. No. 2965 December 5, 1905 - JOAQUIN MA. HERRER v. ARSENIO CRUZ HERRERA

    005 Phil 383

  • G.R. No. 2083 December 6, 1905 - UNITED STATES v. MANUEL CHAN-CUN-CHAY

    005 Phil 385

  • G.R. No. 1556 December 7, 1905 - JOAQUIN LAFONT v. MARIA YIA PASCASIO

    005 Phil 391

  • G.R. No. 2106 December 8, 1905 - UNITED STATES v. JOSE R. PADILLA

    005 Phil 396

  • G.R. No. 2933 December 8, 1905 - PHILIPPINE TRADING COMPANY v. A.S. CROSSFIELD

    005 Phil 400

  • G.R. No. 1724 December 11, 1905 - ALEJANDRO REYES v. FRANCISCO MARTINEZ

    005 Phil 402

  • G.R. No. 2370 December 12, 1905 - MARIANO ESCUETA v. LEON SY-JUILLIONG

    005 Phil 405

  • G.R. No. 2273 December 13, 1905 - UNITED STATES v. FRANCIS J. BERRY

    005 Phil 409

  • G.R. No. 2496 December 13, 1905 - UNITED STATES v. SIXTO MOLO

    005 Phil 412

  • G.R. No. 2368 December 14, 1905 - CIRILO ESTRELLA v. BONIFACIO ZAMORA, ET AL.

    005 Phil 415

  • G.R. No. 2422 December 14, 1905 - EL BANCO ESPAÑOL FILIPINO v. DONALDSON SIM & CO., ET AL.

    005 Phil 418

  • G.R. No. 1788 December 15, 1905 - UNITED STATES v. JUAN TULAGAN, ET AL.

    005 Phil 427

  • G.R. No. 2364 December 15, 1905 - UNITED STATES v. ARCADIO HERNANDEZ, ET AL.

    005 Phil 429

  • G.R. No. 2764 December 16, 1905 - ENRIQUE SERRANO, ET AL. v. DIONISIO CHANCO

    005 Phil 431

  • G.R. No. 2108 December 19, 1905 - JUANA PIMENTEL v. ENGRACIO PALANCA

    005 Phil 436

  • G.R. No. 2423 December 19, 1905 - UNITED STATES v. BONIFACIO MORALES

    005 Phil 442

  • G.R. No. 2075 December 20, 1905 - UNITED STATES v. VICTOR QUIAMSON

    005 Phil 444

  • G.R. No. 2120 December 21, 1905 - UNITED STATES v. SIMPLICIO LEYSON

    005 Phil 447

  • G.R. No. 2340 December 21, 1905 - JOSE TORRENTE v. W.C. GROVE

    005 Phil 451

  • G.R. No. 2614 December 21, 1905 - UNITED STATES v. SILVERIO PADERES

    005 Phil 456

  • G.R. No. 2058 December 22, 1905 - JOSE MAS v. TIMOTEO LANUZA, ET AL.

    005 Phil 457

  • G.R. No. 2061 December 28, 1905 - UNITED STATES v. MARCOS ZAFRA

    005 Phil 460

  • G.R. No. 2201 December 28, 1905 - UNITED STATES v. SANTIAGO MATEO

    005 Phil 462

  • G.R. No. 2298 December 28, 1905 - UNITED STATES v. IGNACIO SIATONG

    005 Phil 463

  • G.R. No. 2453 December 28, 1905 - UNITED STATES v. INOCENTES ANDRADA

    005 Phil 464

  • G.R. No. 2456 December 28, 1905 - UNITED STATES v. ELICERIO AMOROSO, ET AL.

    005 Phil 466

  • G.R. No. 2709 December 28, 1905 - UNITED STATES v. ISIDORO ARAGON

    005 Phil 469