January 1907 - Philippine Supreme Court Decisions/Resolutions
Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence
Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1907 > January 1907 Decisions >
G.R. No. L-3172 January 8, 1907 - UNITED STATES v. JANUARIO DEL SOCORRO
008 Phil 759:
008 Phil 759:
FIRST DIVISION
[G.R. No. L-3172. January 8, 1907. ]
THE UNITED STATES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. JANUARIO DEL SOCORRO, Defendant-Appellant.
Ramon Sotelo, for Appellant.
Attorney-General Araneta, for Appellee.
SYLLABUS
FALSE TESTIMONY. — Under the facts as stated in this case: Held, That the accused is guilty of the crime of false testimony as defined by article 320 of the Penal Code.
D E C I S I O N
TORRES, J. :
On the 17th of July, 1905, Januario del Socorro was accused of the crime of the False testimony by the provincial fiscal of Ambos Camarines. In the hearing of a criminal action, cause no. 385, against Mariano de Castro for estafa, tried in the Court of First Instance of Ambos Camarines, the said Socorro, being duly sworn, gave false testimony as to the facts in the case. He testified that he left some dried the some picked fish belonging to him in the hands of said Castro and that Castro thereupon and without his consent disposed of the fish; that the said Castro had never accompanied him to the barrio of Barcelona to purchase fish, when in truth and in fact the said Castro was Socorro’s partner in the deal and they had gone over together to purchase the said fish.
The case went to trial and the judge below found Socorro, on January 5, 1906, guilty as charged, and sentenced him to severe a term of two months and one day of arresto mayor, and to pay the costs, and, in case of insolvency, to serve subsidiary imprisonment therefor not exceeding one-third of the principal term. From this judgment the accused appealed.
In the cause insisted for estafa against Mariano de Castro the accused, Januario del Socorro, appears to have testified under oath that he had on the 12th of August, 1904, delivered, on deposit, into the hands of the said Castro some dried and some pickled fish belonging to him, Socorro; that Castro not being a partner of Socorro and having no intent whatever in the fish, sold the said fish for a consideration without the consent of the latter, who was then and there the owner thereof, and did misapply and appropriate e the proceeds to his own use; and that Castro had never gone with Socorro to the barrio of Barcelona for the purpose of buying fish.
From the evidence of Mariano de Castro, Flaviano Palmero, Victoriano Botihi, and Bernabela Benito, who testified in the trial, it is clearly proven that Januario de Socorro, Mariano de Castro, and Bernabela Benito had on the 17th of 18th of July, 1904, formed a partnership for the purpose of buying dried fish in Barcelona and selling them in Nueva Caceres; that Socorro was the working partner and Castro and the woman financial partners. Pursuant to this agreement Castro and Socorro embarked in a baroto (small boat) and started for Barcelona, the said Flaviano Palmero accompanying them. Castro carried with him the sum of P233, of which P80 belonged to the woman Bernabela Benito, the remainder being his own. This money was for the purpose of buying fish. Owing, however, to bad weather, Castro Socorro disembarked at a point called Cabusao for the purpose of getting into a larger craft, while Flaviano Palmero put back to Nueva Caceres in the same baroto. The two voyagers then continued the trip from Cabusao to Barcelona in another baroto and there met Victoriano Botihi. Socorro stated to Botihi that Castro had come with him and that the prince of the fish as previously arranged for between them must now be settled with Castro, who had the money. Castro and Botihi thereupon agreed upon the cash price of P110 per thousand fish. Upon the price being fixed, Castro told Botihi that he would arrange to leave the money with Socorro, who in turn was to pay him, Botihi, for the fish bought.
After buying a sack of rice and four sacks of salt, Castro handed the money he had left over to Socorro with which to pay for the fish, and told the accuse to clean, dry, and prepare them well and to ship them quickly to Nueva Caceres, because he, Castro, was in a hurry to go back, which he did.
Three weeks thereafter the accused, Januario del Socorro, arrived in Nueva Caceres with the fish, in obedience to instructions from Castro, who had previously sent him word to Barcelona that if the fish were already dried and prepared for the market to bring them along. The fish were landed accordingly and stored in the house of Bernabela Benito who, on perceiving that they were of small size, told Socorro on that occasion in the presence of Bernabela and in her house, that if the fish bought at P110 per thousand could be sold at P14, to go ahead and disposed of them, in order not to lose the money invested the proposition and then left hurriedly on some pretext. Castro sold the fish at the price stated and received only P222 as the proceeds of the business.
The facts as charged in the complaint and which have been clearly proven at the trial constitute the crime of giving false testimony, for if the essence of this punishable act, as a crime well defined in the penal laws, lies in the willful contradictions of the truth, it must be apparent to all, both to express and non-experts, that such contradiction or error, according to its nature, can not be consistently left to the opinion of him who maliciously and supposedly ignores it. And, if the general; principles of article 1 of the Penal Code is applicable to the crime of false testimony, according to which all acts and omissions punished by law are considered to be willful intent in the broadest sense of interpretation unless it is otherwise ]proven, the accused is bound to prove the exceptions. It is an undeniable fact that the accused did willfully pervert the truth by falsely testifying under oath in the cause for estafa against Mariano de Castro, that the dried and pickled fish brought into Nueva Caceres from Barcelona and deposited with Castro were his own exclusive property, and that the latter having no interest whatsoever in nor the right to sell, the said property, did sell the same without his (Socorro’s) knowledge and consent, and bill appropriate to his own use and benefit the proceeds thereof, to the prejudice and loss of the former. these declarations, made under path, were proven at the trial to be entirely false. It was also proven that the fish had been brought with money furnished by Castro and the woman Bernabela Benito, who were then and there the sole owners thereof, and that Januario del Socorro was only interested in a share of the profits. Therefore Socorro did commit the crime of giving false, testimony, in pertaining the truth when testifying under oath in a cause for estafa against Castro.
In view of the facts that in the complaint as filed it does not appear that Januario del Socorro has ever lodge against Mariano de Castro a complaint for false accusation of denunciation, and the only punishable act by him committed was the giving of false testimony during a hearing for estafa against the said Castro, the provisions of article 326 of the Penal Code can not be applied here, but only those of article 3200 since the false testimony given by the accused did in the main cause against him, inasmuch as it did not alter or otherwise influence the decision or final outcome of the judgment rendered in the said action. The said Mariano de Castro was absolved of the crime of estafa by the court below.
The proofs furnished by the prosecution consisting of the testimony of Mariano de Castro, Flaviano Palmero, Bernabela Benito, and brought, supply abundant evidence of the unmistakable guilt of the accused, the falsity of his sworn declaration. This evidence has not the defense, in the attempts to prove that the fish in question were the property of Januario del Socorro, purchased by him from Victoriano Botihi with money furnished by one Carmen Alcantara. Form, although the said Victoriano Botihi, one Telesforo Telis, and one Aurelio Eco, witness in the case, did not in effect testify to the contrary, neither did they agree with the allegations, made by Januario del Socorro. The evidence as adduced, therefore, is confirmatory of the crime as charged.
There is no evidence in the case set up by the defense to show that the accused was not, at the time he testified in the main cause, duly sworn, a requisite which appears to have been duly complied with according to "Exhibit A," which was authenticated by the stenographer; and it is to be presumed in law that in the main examination of the witness, Januario del Socorro, in the main cause for estafa, the formality of putting a witness under oath as prescribed by law was strictly observed; the defense has offered no proof to the contrary.
In the commission of the crime of giving false testimony no generic mitigating or aggravating circumstances is to be considered, and for this reason the penalty as prescribed by the code should be applied in the medium degree, as has been done by the judge below in the judgment entered and appealed from.
We therefore affirm the judgment as rendered by the court below with costs of this instance against the appellant, provided, however, that the accused is hereby sentenced to the accessory penalties of article 61; but the subsidiary imprisonment imposed for insolvency in the costs is revoked since the code makes no provisions whatever therefor. So ordered.
Arellano, C.J., Mapa, Carson, Willard, and Tracey, JJ., concur.
The case went to trial and the judge below found Socorro, on January 5, 1906, guilty as charged, and sentenced him to severe a term of two months and one day of arresto mayor, and to pay the costs, and, in case of insolvency, to serve subsidiary imprisonment therefor not exceeding one-third of the principal term. From this judgment the accused appealed.
In the cause insisted for estafa against Mariano de Castro the accused, Januario del Socorro, appears to have testified under oath that he had on the 12th of August, 1904, delivered, on deposit, into the hands of the said Castro some dried and some pickled fish belonging to him, Socorro; that Castro not being a partner of Socorro and having no intent whatever in the fish, sold the said fish for a consideration without the consent of the latter, who was then and there the owner thereof, and did misapply and appropriate e the proceeds to his own use; and that Castro had never gone with Socorro to the barrio of Barcelona for the purpose of buying fish.
From the evidence of Mariano de Castro, Flaviano Palmero, Victoriano Botihi, and Bernabela Benito, who testified in the trial, it is clearly proven that Januario de Socorro, Mariano de Castro, and Bernabela Benito had on the 17th of 18th of July, 1904, formed a partnership for the purpose of buying dried fish in Barcelona and selling them in Nueva Caceres; that Socorro was the working partner and Castro and the woman financial partners. Pursuant to this agreement Castro and Socorro embarked in a baroto (small boat) and started for Barcelona, the said Flaviano Palmero accompanying them. Castro carried with him the sum of P233, of which P80 belonged to the woman Bernabela Benito, the remainder being his own. This money was for the purpose of buying fish. Owing, however, to bad weather, Castro Socorro disembarked at a point called Cabusao for the purpose of getting into a larger craft, while Flaviano Palmero put back to Nueva Caceres in the same baroto. The two voyagers then continued the trip from Cabusao to Barcelona in another baroto and there met Victoriano Botihi. Socorro stated to Botihi that Castro had come with him and that the prince of the fish as previously arranged for between them must now be settled with Castro, who had the money. Castro and Botihi thereupon agreed upon the cash price of P110 per thousand fish. Upon the price being fixed, Castro told Botihi that he would arrange to leave the money with Socorro, who in turn was to pay him, Botihi, for the fish bought.
After buying a sack of rice and four sacks of salt, Castro handed the money he had left over to Socorro with which to pay for the fish, and told the accuse to clean, dry, and prepare them well and to ship them quickly to Nueva Caceres, because he, Castro, was in a hurry to go back, which he did.
Three weeks thereafter the accused, Januario del Socorro, arrived in Nueva Caceres with the fish, in obedience to instructions from Castro, who had previously sent him word to Barcelona that if the fish were already dried and prepared for the market to bring them along. The fish were landed accordingly and stored in the house of Bernabela Benito who, on perceiving that they were of small size, told Socorro on that occasion in the presence of Bernabela and in her house, that if the fish bought at P110 per thousand could be sold at P14, to go ahead and disposed of them, in order not to lose the money invested the proposition and then left hurriedly on some pretext. Castro sold the fish at the price stated and received only P222 as the proceeds of the business.
The facts as charged in the complaint and which have been clearly proven at the trial constitute the crime of giving false testimony, for if the essence of this punishable act, as a crime well defined in the penal laws, lies in the willful contradictions of the truth, it must be apparent to all, both to express and non-experts, that such contradiction or error, according to its nature, can not be consistently left to the opinion of him who maliciously and supposedly ignores it. And, if the general; principles of article 1 of the Penal Code is applicable to the crime of false testimony, according to which all acts and omissions punished by law are considered to be willful intent in the broadest sense of interpretation unless it is otherwise ]proven, the accused is bound to prove the exceptions. It is an undeniable fact that the accused did willfully pervert the truth by falsely testifying under oath in the cause for estafa against Mariano de Castro, that the dried and pickled fish brought into Nueva Caceres from Barcelona and deposited with Castro were his own exclusive property, and that the latter having no interest whatsoever in nor the right to sell, the said property, did sell the same without his (Socorro’s) knowledge and consent, and bill appropriate to his own use and benefit the proceeds thereof, to the prejudice and loss of the former. these declarations, made under path, were proven at the trial to be entirely false. It was also proven that the fish had been brought with money furnished by Castro and the woman Bernabela Benito, who were then and there the sole owners thereof, and that Januario del Socorro was only interested in a share of the profits. Therefore Socorro did commit the crime of giving false, testimony, in pertaining the truth when testifying under oath in a cause for estafa against Castro.
In view of the facts that in the complaint as filed it does not appear that Januario del Socorro has ever lodge against Mariano de Castro a complaint for false accusation of denunciation, and the only punishable act by him committed was the giving of false testimony during a hearing for estafa against the said Castro, the provisions of article 326 of the Penal Code can not be applied here, but only those of article 3200 since the false testimony given by the accused did in the main cause against him, inasmuch as it did not alter or otherwise influence the decision or final outcome of the judgment rendered in the said action. The said Mariano de Castro was absolved of the crime of estafa by the court below.
The proofs furnished by the prosecution consisting of the testimony of Mariano de Castro, Flaviano Palmero, Bernabela Benito, and brought, supply abundant evidence of the unmistakable guilt of the accused, the falsity of his sworn declaration. This evidence has not the defense, in the attempts to prove that the fish in question were the property of Januario del Socorro, purchased by him from Victoriano Botihi with money furnished by one Carmen Alcantara. Form, although the said Victoriano Botihi, one Telesforo Telis, and one Aurelio Eco, witness in the case, did not in effect testify to the contrary, neither did they agree with the allegations, made by Januario del Socorro. The evidence as adduced, therefore, is confirmatory of the crime as charged.
There is no evidence in the case set up by the defense to show that the accused was not, at the time he testified in the main cause, duly sworn, a requisite which appears to have been duly complied with according to "Exhibit A," which was authenticated by the stenographer; and it is to be presumed in law that in the main examination of the witness, Januario del Socorro, in the main cause for estafa, the formality of putting a witness under oath as prescribed by law was strictly observed; the defense has offered no proof to the contrary.
In the commission of the crime of giving false testimony no generic mitigating or aggravating circumstances is to be considered, and for this reason the penalty as prescribed by the code should be applied in the medium degree, as has been done by the judge below in the judgment entered and appealed from.
We therefore affirm the judgment as rendered by the court below with costs of this instance against the appellant, provided, however, that the accused is hereby sentenced to the accessory penalties of article 61; but the subsidiary imprisonment imposed for insolvency in the costs is revoked since the code makes no provisions whatever therefor. So ordered.
Arellano, C.J., Mapa, Carson, Willard, and Tracey, JJ., concur.
