Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1905 > February 1905 Decisions > G.R. No. 1787 February 21, 1905 - UNITED STATES v. LOPENA ET AL.

004 Phil 224:




PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

EN BANC

[G.R. No. 1787. February 21, 1905. ]

THE UNITED STATES, Complainant-Appellee, v. MATIAS LOPENA, ET AL., Defendants-Appellants.

Ramon Salinas, for Appellants.

Solicitor-General Araneta, for Appellee.

SYLLABUS


1. CRIMINAL LAW; LEGAL PRESUMPTION; REASONABLE DOUBT. — The defendant has a presumption of innocence in his favor, and therefore he can not be sentenced when the evidence does not prove his guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.


D E C I S I O N


TORRES, J. :


In a complaint dated July 31, 1903, Matias Lopena, Casimiro Barroso (alias Jorge Lopena), Dionisio Puente, and Placido Lopena were charged by Paula Villa with the crime of robbery. The complaint stated that the defendants, on or about July 26, 1903, in the city of Manila, did willfully and unlawfully, armed with bolos, scale the house in which the complaint lived and take the sum of 210 pesos, a pair of earrings set in pearls, valued at 18 pesos, local currency, belonging to her, without her consent and to her prejudice; all contrary to the law. The case having come on for trial, the defendants pleaded not guilty, but before entering upon the proofs, and at the request of the assistant prosecuting attorney the case was dismissed as regards Placido Lopena in order to use him as a witness. After the evidence was completed in the case, the court below sentenced Matias Lopena, Casimiro Barroso (alias Jorge Lopena), and Ignacio or Dionisio Puente to two years four months and one day of prision correccional, having found them guilty of the crime of robbery. From this sentence the defendants appealed.

While from the complaint and the testimony given by the injured party, Paula Villa, we might consider the fact of the robbery proven, yet since her father and her cousin, who lived in the same house, did not testify, and there is no other evidence corroborating her testimony, we can not assert for that reason that there is in the record any evidence which might satisfactory establish the guilt of the defendants beyond reasonable doubt. Paula Villa herself states in her testimony that when the robbers entered her house through the window the one who came in first grabbed her by the hands, thus awaking her; that her father and her servant, Placido Lopena, were still asleep; that when her father awoke the servant was still in bed, motionless, no doubt on account of fear. However, in the complaint she charged her servant as one of the robbers. This charge, as will be seen, was contradicted by her in her sworn statements.

The injured party states that she knew who the robbers were and the place where they lived, because her servant, Placido Lopena, who is a relative to certain of the defendants, told her and pointed out the place where Matias Lopena and Casimiro Barroso lived; that Placido Lopena took her and the policeman, on the sixth day after the occurrence, to the house of Matias Lopena and Casimiro Barroso in order to arrest them.

Placido Lopena, however, while he corroborates the fact that the robbery was committed by three unknown persons, denies having told anything regarding the defendants or having indicated their residences; that when defendants were arrested Paula Villa told him beforehand to follow her and the policeman as a witness; that when defendants were arrested Paula Villa told him beforehand to follow her and the policeman as a witness; that when he told her he was afraid something might happen to him, she answered not to be frightened, that she would look to it; that he remained in the street while the policeman apprehended the defendant; he denies having indicated to them the house and denies having stated that the one who caught Paula by the neck on the night of the robbery was one of the defendants.

The defendants pleaded not guilty; two of them, Casimiro Barroso and Matias Lopena, each put one witness on the stand to testify in their behalf that when they came from work they had dinner and went to sleep. These two assert that they did not leave their house on the night of the robbery, and the other defendant, Ignacio Puente, states that he was away in the town of Muntinlupa on the night and morning of the occurrence; that when he returned to Singalong and heard that the police were looking for him he then hastened to the Paco station, in order to learn why they wanted him.

The facts in this case do not produce on the mind a clear conviction of the defendants’ guilt; the defendants further have the presumption of innocence in their favor until the contrary is proven, and so by virtue of the reasons above stated we are of the opinion that the judgment below should be reversed and the defendants, Matias Lopena, Casimiro Barroso (alias Jorge Lopena), and Dionisio or Ignacio Puente, acquitted, with the costs de oficio, this case to be remanded to the court below with a certified copy of this decision and of the judgment which shall be rendered in accordance herewith. So ordered.

Arellano, C.J., Mapa, 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






February-1905 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. 1657 February 1, 1905 - UNITED STATES v. SULPICIO ALIÑO ET AL.

    004 Phil 181

  • G.R. No. 1942 February 1, 1905 - UNITED STATES v. LOPE DEDICATORIA

    004 Phil 183

  • G.R. No. 1459 February 2, 1905 - UNITED STATES v. JOHN MACK

    004 Phil 185

  • G.R. No. 1678 February 2, 1905 - UNITED STATES v. BRAULIO ALMASAN

    004 Phil 186

  • G.R. No. 1961 February 2, 1905 - UNITED STATES v. ESTEBAN BAUTISTA, ET AL.

    004 Phil 188

  • G.R. No. 1865 February 3, 1905 - UNITED STATES v. GREGORIO LACANELAO SANTOS, ET AL.

    004 Phil 189

  • G.R. No. 1886 February 4, 1905 - UNITED STATES v. CANDELARIO CUISON

    004 Phil 194

  • G.R. No. 1157 February 6, 1905 - UNITED STATES v. HILARION GUZMAN

    004 Phil 196

  • G.R. No. 1940 February 6, 1905 - UNITED STATES v. NICOLAS PALILIO, ET AL.

    004 Phil 198

  • G.R. No. 1568 February 10, 1905 - UNITED STATES v. AQUILINO CALVO

    004 Phil 201

  • G.R. No. 2342 February 10, 1905 - CONCEPCION CALVO v. ANGELES O. DE GUTIERREZ, ET AL.

    004 Phil 203

  • G.R. No. 1662 February 13, 1905 - UNITED STATES v. JOSE YAMBAO

    004 Phil 204

  • G.R. No. 1686 February 13, 1905 - UNITED STATES v. PAULINO PALISOC, ET AL.

    004 Phil 207

  • G.R. No. 1731 February 13, 1905 - UNITED STATES v. DANIEL MARINAY, ET AL.

    004 Phil 209

  • G.R. No. 1990 February 13, 1905 - UNITED STATES v. SIXTO PABLO

    004 Phil 215

  • G.R. No. 1728 February 15, 1905 - UNITED STATES v. ANTONIO DALUSONG

    004 Phil 216

  • G.R. No. 1912 February 15, 1905 - UNITED STATES v. ENRIQUE CAIDO, ET AL.

    004 Phil 217

  • G.R. No. 1768 February 17, 1905 - UNITED STATES v. CATALINO GERALE, ET AL.

    004 Phil 218

  • G.R. No. 1322 February 18, 1905 - UNITED STATES v. TEODORO PINEDA

    004 Phil 223

  • G.R. No. 1787 February 21, 1905 - UNITED STATES v. LOPENA ET AL.

    004 Phil 224

  • G.R. No. 1751 February 23, 1905 - UNITED STATES v. VICENTE LOZADA

    004 Phil 226

  • G.R. No. 2063 February 24, 1905 - UNITED STATES v. TOMAS BIRUEDA

    004 Phil 229

  • G.R. No. 1663 February 28, 1905 - UNITED STATES v. FIDELES RANA, ET AL.

    004 Phil 231

  • G.R. No. 2203 February 28, 1905 - UNITED STATES v. DOMINGO SALCEDO

    004 Phil 234