Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1908 > February 1908 Decisions > G.R. No. L-3967 February 20, 1908 - UNITED STATES v. SANTIAGO MAQUILAN

010 Phil 193:




PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

FIRST DIVISION

[G.R. No. L-3967. February 20, 1908. ]

THE UNITED STATES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. SANTIAGO MAQUILAN, Defendant-Appellant.

M. Legaspi, for Appellant.

Attorney-General Araneta, for Appellee.

SYLLABUS


1. ATTEMPT AGAINST AN AGENT OF THE AUTHORITIES. — An aggression with arms against an agent of the authorities who is performing the duties of his office, or by reason thereof, constitutes the attempt qualified, defined, and punished under article 250 of the Penal Code.

2. ID.; ADMISSION BY THE ACCUSED. — When the aggressor states in his declaration that the individuals who separated him and another with whom he was engaged in a fight, and who tried to take them both before the authorities, were police agents, no proof will be admitted to show that the said individuals were not in uniform, or that they were not engaged in the performance of their duties, contrary to the findings contained in the judgment appealed from.


D E C I S I O N


TORRES, J. :


At about 10 p.m. on the 1st of May 1905, Leoncio Robles and Gregorio Villanueva, members of the municipal police, were patrolling the barrio of Sumag, Bacolod, Occidental Negros, and when passing by Calle Araneta they saw that Santiago Maquilan and Tiburcio Delgado were engaged in a fight with sticks. They at once proceeded to separate them, and at the time ordered the combatants to follow them in order that they might be placed at the disposal of the representative of the barrio. Tiburcio Delgado obeyed at once, but the accused, Maquilan, sat on the ground, and refused to walk. The policemen caught hold of his hands in order to take him before the said official, whereupon Jose Maquilan, a brother of Santiago, made his appearance and upon being informed of what had taken place, he confronted Tiburcio Delgado. Policeman Villanueva on seeing this, released the accused and approached the other two for the purpose of preventing another quarrel. The accused finding that he was free, attacked policeman Leoncio Robles, with a penknife, the latter having caught him by the right hand, and wounded the officer in the left side. In this manner he succeeded in freeing himself and immediately fled in the direction of his house and locked the door in order to escape from his captors.

A complaint was filed by the provincial fiscal with the Court of First Instance charging Santiago Maquilan with the crime of attempt against an agent of the authorities. The corresponding proceedings were instituted, and the court rendered judgment on the 1st of December, 1906, sentencing the accused to the penalty of two years four months and one day of prision correccional, to pay a fine of 625 pesetas, and in case of insolvency to suffer the corresponding subsidiary imprisonment not to exceed one-third of the principal penalty, and to pay the costs. From said judgment counsel for the accused has appealed.

From the facts stated above, which appear to be proven in this case, it appears that the crime of attempt with arms against an agent of the authorities was committed at a time when the latter was performing the duties of his office, a crime defined and punished under articles 249, No. 2 and 250, No. 1, of the Penal Code. It is an unquestionable fact that on the night in question Leoncio Robles and Gregorio Villanueva, members of the municipal police, were patrolling the barrio of Sumag, Bacolod, and upon noticing that Tiburcio Delgado, and Santiago Maquilan were fighting and hitting each other with sticks, they intervened and separated them and said policemen, complying with their duties, tried to take the combatants before the representative of the local authorities, for having committed a punishable offense; that the accused, Maquilan, instead of obeying, began to resist, and in order to free himself from the hands of policeman Robles, who held him, he wounded the latter in the left side with a penknife — that is, with a pointed weapon — an aggression which facilitated his escape and which is actually an attempt against an agent of the authorities, and at least with lesiones menos graves, because under medical treatment the wound healed in twenty days; this fact was proven by the testimony of the injured man, Robles, by that of the other policeman, Gregorio Villanueva, and by the eyewitness Tiburcio Delgado.

The accused pleaded not guilty, but notwithstanding his denial and exculpatory allegations that while fighting with Tiburcio Delgado, who, as he states, was also a policeman, which has not been proven, the latter was aided by the aforenamed policemen Robles and Villanueva, and that the three together flogged him and inflicted lesiones upon several parts of his body; the record however, contains sufficient evidence of the charge preferred against him, that of having attacked with arms the policeman who was holding him in order to take him before the representative of the authorities; and aside from the contradictions observed in the testimony of his witnesses, the incredible statements made by them are destroyed by the uniform testimony of the witnesses for the prosecution to such an extent that the justice of the peace who took cognizance of the complaint of the accused on account of his lesiones convicted his adversary, Tiburcio Delgado, and acquitted the policemen of the charge made against them of aiding the said Delgado during the fight.

In the commission of the crime it is proper to consider the mitigating circumstance 7 of article 9 of the Penal Code, because the aggression occurred at a time when Maquilan was engaged in a fight with Delgado; and when he had just received from the latter a blow which wounded him and which undoubtedly must have produced in him loss of reason and self-control. This circumstance is not counteracted by any circumstance of an aggravating character.

The petition for a new trial filed by the accused is not admissible, for the reason that the evidence intended to be adduced by means of sworn statements in the form of affidavits offered by him is not really new, nor was it discovered only after the trial, but it is intended to obtain the withdrawal of two witnesses for the prosecution who were not cross-examined during the trial, an act which shows carelessness and lack of due diligence on the part of the counsel for the accused. It is now pretended to offer counter proof, or to counteract the result of the evidence when the proceedings are closed. Such a pretension is contrary to law and can not be admitted, especially when the record offers sufficient evidence of the commission of the crime and of the responsibility of the accused, even if the withdrawal of the witnesses Robles and Delgado were obtained.

Against the affirmation contained in the judgment, that the two policeman were in uniform on the night in question and that they carried their badges to show they were agents of the authorities, no proof has been adduced, and there is no lawful reason for rejecting the statement. Moreover, the accused himself acknowledges, by his declaration, that the two individuals who separated him and Delgado in their fight, and who tried to take them before the representative of the authorities when the crime was committed, were policemen and agents of the authorities. Therefore, considering these facts, which were fully proven and which form the basis of the judgment of the court below and of the decision of the court, no counter proof is admissible outside of and after the trial.

Therefore, and as the judgment appealed from is in accordance with the law, it is our opinion that the same should be affirmed with the costs against the accused. So ordered.

Arellano, C.J., Mapa, Johnson, Carson, Willard and Tracey, 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-1908 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. L-3720 February 3, 1908 - MARIA COSIO v. ANTONINO, ET AL.

    010 Phil 72

  • G.R. No. L-3971 February 3, 1908 - UNITED STATES v. HILARIO BRAGANZA, ET AL.

    010 Phil 79

  • G.R. No. L-4005 February 3, 1908 - UNITED STATES v. RUFO REYES

    010 Phil 83

  • G.R. No. L-3806 February 4, 1908 - MARIANO MADAMBA v. PELAGIA MAGNO

    010 Phil 86

  • G.R. No. L-3860 February 5, 1908 - UNITED STATES v. FAUSTINO TREMOYA

    010 Phil 89

  • G.R. No. L-3906 February 5, 1908 - UNITED STATES v. JACINTO PAGUIA

    010 Phil 90

  • G.R. No. L-4125 February 5, 1908 - FREDERICK GARFIELD WAITE v. F. THEODORE ROGERS

    010 Phil 94

  • G.R. No. L-4552 February 5, 1908 - ARTHUR F. YAMBERT v. J. MCMICKING

    010 Phil 95

  • G.R. No. L-4092 February 6, 1908 - UNITED STATES v. DANIEL CAMPO

    010 Phil 97

  • G.R. No. L-4165 February 8, 1908 - UNITED STATES v. SIMEON GAMALINDA, ET AL.

    010 Phil 100

  • G.R. No. L-3962 February 10, 1908 - UNITED STATES v. LING SU FAN

    010 Phil 104

  • G.R. No. L-4251 February 10, 1908 - CLEMENTE MANOTOC v. JOSE MCMICKING

    010 Phil 119

  • G.R. No. L-4193 February 11, 1908 - ISIDORO SANTOS v. MODESTO REYES

    010 Phil 123

  • G.R. No. L-4108 February 12, 1908 - UNITED STATES v. DOROTEO GALIT QUINTO

    010 Phil 126

  • G.R. No. L-4217 February 12, 1908 - UNITED STATES v. CEFERINO CAUAS

    010 Phil 131

  • G.R. No. L-4328 February 13, 1908 - UNITED STATES v. JOSE CRAME

    010 Phil 135

  • G.R. No. 3870 February 14, 1908 - LAZARO REMO ET AL. v. PASTOR ESPINOSA

    010 Phil 136

  • G.R. No. L-3974 February 14, 1908 - UNITED STATES v. ISIDRO JAMERO

    010 Phil 137

  • G.R. No. L-3770 February 17, 1908 - CARLOS PABIA SY CHUNG-QUIONG v. FELIPA SY-TIONG TAY CUANSI

    010 Phil 141

  • G.R. No. L-3939 February 17, 1908 - MENDEZONA & CO. v. MARIANO MORENO

    010 Phil 144

  • G.R. No. L-4043 February 17, 1908 - ROMAN DE LA ROSA v. GREGORIO REVITA SANTOS

    010 Phil 148

  • G.R. No. L-3898 February 18, 1908 - CITY OF MANILA v. TOMAS CABANGIS

    010 Phil 151

  • G.R. No. L-4014 February 18, 1908 - GENARO HEREDIA v. RAMON SALINAS

    010 Phil 157

  • G.R. No. L-4139 February 18, 1908 - UNITED STATES v. JUAN SAN LUIS

    010 Phil 163

  • G.R. No. L-4195 February 18, 1908 - ATLANTIC v. GOVERNMENT OF THE PHIL. ISLANDS

    010 Phil 166

  • G.R. No. L-3793 February 19, 1908 - CIRILO MAPA v. INSULAR GOVERNMENT

    010 Phil 175

  • G.R. No. L-3875 February 19, 1908 - UNITED STATES v. JANUARIO FRANCISCO

    010 Phil 185

  • G.R. No. L-3998 February 19, 1908 - UNITED STATES v. POMPOSO BURGUETA, ET AL.

    010 Phil 188

  • G.R. No. L-4319 February 19, 1908 - STRONG & TROWBRIDGE v. VAN BUSKIRK-CROOK CO.

    010 Phil 190

  • G.R. No. L-4335 February 19, 1908 - UNITED STATES v. PEDRO LINDIO

    010 Phil 192

  • G.R. No. L-3967 February 20, 1908 - UNITED STATES v. SANTIAGO MAQUILAN

    010 Phil 193

  • G.R. No. L-3751 February 21, 1908 - EDUARDA BENEDICTO v. JULIO JAVELLANA

    010 Phil 197

  • G.R. No. L-4402 February 21, 1908 - UNITED STATES v. FELIX YAPE, ET AL.

    010 Phil 204

  • G.R. No. L-3937 February 24, 1908 - UNITED STATES v. JUAN SALUD

    010 Phil 206

  • G.R. No. L-4138 February 25, 1908 - SY HONG ENG v. SY LIOC SUY

    010 Phil 209

  • G.R. No. L-4489 February 25, 1908 - RAMON HONTIVEROS v. JOSE C. ABREU

    010 Phil 213

  • G.R. No. L-4512 February 25, 1908 - GREGORIO ABENDAN v. MARTIN LLORENTE

    010 Phil 216

  • G.R. No. L-3960 February 27, 1908 - GIL HERMANOS v. JOHN S. HORD

    010 Phil 218

  • G.R. No. L-4159 February 27, 1908 - UNITED STATES v. JUAN GALLEGO

    010 Phil 222

  • G.R. No. L-4255 February 27, 1908 - UNITED STATES v. JULIO AUTIZ

    010 Phil 223

  • G.R. No. L-4576 February 27, 1908 - MAURO NAVARRO v. CASIANO GIMENEZ

    010 Phil 226

  • G.R. No. L-4189 February 28, 1908 - UNITED STATES v. SEYMOUR ADDISON

    010 Phil 230

  • G.R. No. L-4298 February 28, 1908 - UNITED STATES v. FRANCISCO MARAVILLA

    010 Phil 233

  • G.R. No. L-4366 February 28, 1908 - UNITED STATES v. JUAN GARCIA

    010 Phil 240

  • G.R. No. L-3471 February 28, 1908 - INT’L. BANKING CORP. v. FRANCISCO MARTINEZ

    010 Phil 242

  • G.R. No. L-3472 February 29, 1908 - INT’L. BANKING CORP. v. FRANCISCO MARTINEZ

    010 Phil 252

  • G.R. No. L-4067 February 29, 1908 - FREDERICK E. MOREY v. LAO LAYCO

    010 Phil 258

  • G.R. No. L-4346 February 29, 1908 - UNITED STATES v. MARIANO PESCADOR

    010 Phil 260

  • G.R. No. L-4469 February 29, 1908 - FELIPE G. CALDERON v. JOSE MCMICKING

    010 Phil 261