Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence

Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1908 > March 1908 Decisions > G.R. No. L-3975 March 21, 1908 - UNITED STATES v. ANGEL MARIN

010 Phil 481:



[G.R. No. L-3975. March 21, 1908. ]

THE UNITED STATES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. ANGEL MARIN, Defendant-Appellant.

Matias Hilado, for Appellant.

Attorney-General Araneta, for Appellee.


1. REASONABLE DOUBT; ACQUITTAL. — When the evidence adduced at the trial leaves a reasonable doubt as to his guilt, the accused should be acquitted.



On the 27th of April, 1906, in the municipality of Bacolod, Occidental Negros, the defendant received a watch from one Maximo K. Engel, under an agreement whereby it was understood that the defendant was to try to raffle the watch, and to pay to Engel P150 out of the proceeds retaining for himself all he could realized upon the undertaking in excess of that amount. It was also understood that the watch was to be returned to Engel every night until the necessary tickets were sold and the sum of P150 paid to Engel in accordance with the agreement. On the 3d day of May the defendant pawned the watch to one Jose Atienza for P52, starting at the same time that it was his property, and on the following day he left Bacolod and went to Victorias where he stayed for several weeks, until he learned that a complaint had been filed by Engel charging him with estafa, whereupon he returned to Bacolod, redeemed the watch and turned it over to the justice of the peace, at the same time protesting that it was his property, purchased by him from the complainant.

The accused admitted the truth of the foregoing facts, but alleged that on the morning of the 3d of May and before he pawned the watch, he returned it to Engel informing him that he could not sell the necessary tickets for the raffle; and that Engel then sold him the watch on credit for P125, payable during the month of May, or at latest on the feast of Bago.

In support of his allegations, the defendant called to the stand Felipe Gepulco, Jose Atienza, and Francisco Geolingo; Gepulco swore he was present when the sale was made; Atienza, with whom the watch was pawned, testified that Engel, when he discovered that the witness had the watch, offered to pay the amount which had been he had sold it on credit to the defendant, but was afraid that the defendant would not pay for it; Geolingo testified that one day early in May, 1906, he met Engel on the street and asked him when he expected to leave town, and that Engel replied that he could not get away at that time because he had sold a watch to the defendant on credit, and would have to wait the end of the month for payment.

The trial judge did not believe the testimony of the witnesses for the defense, and convicted the defendant of the crime of estafa with which he was charged.

We are agreed that if the accused and his witness are to be wholly disbelieved the judgment of conviction should be sustained, but while we are strongly inclined to agree with the trial judge, and the inherent weakness of the story of the accused stamps it with an air of improbability, nevertheless a particle or evidence in contradiction of the testimony of the accused and his witness; under, such circumstances we are not prepared to hold that it is false beyond a reasonable doubt. Engel, the owner of the watch, who might have contradicted the testimony to the stand, and appears to have been out of the province at the time of the trial.

The trial judge reviewing the testimony of the witnesses for the defense makes the following observation on which he bases his rejection of the defendant’s story of the purchase of the

"Felipe Gepulco, who states that he witnessed the supposed sale on credit of the aforesaid watch, testified before the court that the owner of said article was named Marcos, when, as a matter of fact, in the court of the justice of the peace he called him by his real name, Maximo, and also alleged that the latter was a Spaniard and wore a thin mustache, which is not true, because Maximo K. Engel, a s may be recognized from his speech is not a Spaniard, and wears a very thick mustache; this shows that the said witness could not have been present at the transaction, as he declares. The witness Gepulco is a person who speaks good Castilian, and for this reason he could not have made a mistake when relating the personal circumstances regarding Maximo K. Engel, if he had actually witnessed the sale.

"The witness Francisco Geolingo, an educated person, declares that on an afternoon of a day in the early part of the month of May, 1906, he met Maximo K. Engel on the street and asked him when he was going away, to which the latter replied that of the watch sold to Marin for P125, payable at the end of the said month of May. It should be noticed that notwithstanding the intelligence of this witness, he has been unable to recall the date, or the day of the week when the conversation took place.

"From the extract of the declarations of the defense, the improbability of the testimony of Felipe Gepulco appears, as also the declaration of Geolingo and the accused, since it is not possible to suppose nor believe that Maximo K. Engel, who had already stated his desire to leave at once for Manila (Exhibit A), should have sold on credit the said watch to Martin, and wait for payment until the end of May, and that Engel, being a merchant, could afford to stay one month in Bacolod in order to await the payment for the watch; nor is it reasonable to believe that the should have sold it for P125 when it was known that, when trying to raffle the watch, it was made a necessary conditions that Engel should receive P150 as the value thereof, and that in the supposed sale on credit a smaller sum was demanded. The improbability of the simulated sale also becomes evident when it is considered that, at the time when the raffle was contemplated, Engel imposed on Marin the condition that the watch should be returned to him every evening a condition which discloses lack of confidence; it is therefore incredible that he should have afterwards sold it on credit, and for a smaller sum without even demanding a receipt in case of sale.

"Such a sale as alleged can not, therefore, be believed, and the allegation thereof by the accused was undoubtedly made in order to avoid the criminal liability he has incurred."cralaw virtua1aw library

There is nothing in the record of the trial in the Court of First Instance, save the findings of the judge, to show what Engel’s true nationality was, nor whether he wore a beard (mustache) or not; and in any event we do not think that a mistake of the witness Felipe Gepulco as to Engel’s nationality, and his failure to recall correctly Engel’s facial peculiarities after having seen him but once, nearly eight months before the trial, are conclusive of the falsity of his statements. It is not improbable, judging from his name, that he is a European, and it appears from his letters in the record that he wrote fair Spanish, so that it may, perhaps be presumed that he also spoke the language. Under such circumstances the mistake of the witness as to his nationality, if it was a mistake, does not seem to be remarkable, and that the finding of the trial judge the Engel wore a heavy beard, even if it could be taken into consideration when it does not appear that he was present at the trial or that any of the witnesses testified as to this fact, is not of much importance without a further finding that Engel wore a beard at the time when the witness Gepulco testified that he saw him. It is not at all surprising that the witness, Francisco Geolingo, was unable to remember the day of the week or the month in which he happened to have a casual conversation with the owner of the watch, as such conversation, if it occurred, must have occurred seven or eight months before the date of the trial. Nor can we agree with the trial judge that a sale on credit under the conditions and at the price alleged by the defense was so extraordinary as to justify us in branding the whole story as false beyond a reasonable doubt.

It may be admitted that the story of the defendants and his witnesses is improbable, but its falsity is not proven beyond a reasonable doubt, and a judgment of conviction can not be sustained.

The judgment and sentence of the trial court should be and are hereby reversed, and the appellant acquitted of the crime with which he is charged, with the costs of both instances de oficio. So ordered.

Arellano, C.J., Torres, Mapa, Johnson, Willard and Tracey, 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 :

March-1908 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. L-3457 March 2, 1908 - YU BUNUAN ET AL. v. ORESTES MARCAIDA

    010 Phil 265

  • G.R. No. L-4065 March 2, 1908 - BRUNO VILLANUEVA v. MAXIMA ROQUE

    010 Phil 270

  • G.R. No. L-3717 March 5, 1908 - FELIX VELASCO v. MARTIN MASA

    010 Phil 279

  • G.R. No. L-4237 March 5, 1908 - SERAFIN UY PIAOCO v. JOSE MCMICKING

    010 Phil 286


    010 Phil 292

  • G.R. No. 4438 March 7, 1908 - UNITED STATES v. JACINTO SUNGA, ET AL

    011 Phil 601

  • G.R. No. L-3811 March 7, 1908 - UNITED STATES v. FRANCISCO BLANCO

    010 Phil 299

  • G.R. No. L-4026 March 7, 1908 - UNITED STATES v. PASCUAL DULAY

    010 Phil 302


    010 Phil 306

  • G.R. No. 4131 March 9, 1908 - SERAPIO AVERIA v. LUCIO REBOLDERA

    010 Phil 316

  • G.R. No. 4347 March 9, 1908 - JOSE ROGERS v. SMITH

    010 Phil 319

  • G.R. No. 3279 March 11, 1908 - CITY OF MANILA v. INSULAR GOVERNMENT ET AL.

    010 Phil 327

  • G.R. No. L-2129 March 12, 1908 - C. HEINZEN & CO. v. JAMES J. PETERSON, ET AL.

    010 Phil 339

  • G.R. No. L-3523 March 12, 1908 - CARIDAD MUGURUZA v. INT’L. BANKING CORP.

    010 Phil 347

  • G.R. No. L-3855 March 12, 1908 - EUFEMIA LORETO v. JULIO HERRERA

    010 Phil 354

  • G.R. No. L-3907 March 12, 1908 - ROMAN ABAYA v. DONATA ZALAMERO

    010 Phil 357


    010 Phil 360

  • G.R. No. L-4087 March 12, 1908 - UNITED STATES v. AMADOR BARRIOS

    010 Phil 366

  • G.R. No. L-4341 March 12, 1908 - UNITED STATES v. MARCOS ROJO

    010 Phil 369

  • G.R. No. L-469 March 13, 1908 - T. H. PARDO DE TAVERA v. HOLY ROMAN CATHOLIC CHURCH

    010 Phil 371

  • G.R. No. L-3848 March 13, 1908 - UNITED STATES v. ANDRES GIMENO

    010 Phil 380

  • G.R. No. 4146 March 13, 1908 - UNITED STATES v. PETRA DE GUZMAN

    010 Phil 382

  • G.R. No. L-3951 March 14, 1908 - UNITED STATES v. FELICIANO GARCIA

    010 Phil 384

  • G.R. No. L-4169 March 14, 1908 - WILHELM BAUERMANN v. MAXIMA CASAS

    010 Phil 386

  • G.R. No. L-4205 March 16, 1908 - JULIAN CABAÑAS v. DIRECTOR OF LANDS

    010 Phil 393

  • G.R. No. L-4077 March 17, 1908 - MACARIA MATIAS v. AGUSTIN ALVAREZ

    010 Phil 398

  • G.R. No. L-4127 March 17, 1908 - UNITED STATES v. CHARLES J. KOSEL

    010 Phil 409

  • G.R. No. 4051 March 18, 1908 - CATALINA BERNARDO v. VICENTE GENATO

    011 Phil 603

  • G.R. No. L-3606 March 18, 1908 - IGNACIO ACASIO v. FELICISIMA ALBANO

    010 Phil 410

  • G.R. No. L-3699 March 18, 1908 - UNITED STATES v. BENITO CUSI

    010 Phil 413

  • G.R. No. L-4007 March 18, 1908 - WARNER BARNES & CO. v. E. DIAZ & CO.

    010 Phil 418

  • G.R. No. L-4213 March 18, 1908 - UNITED STATES v. POTENCIANO REYES

    010 Phil 423

  • G.R. No. L-4233 March 18, 1908 - EXEQUIEL DELGADO v. MANUEL RIESGO

    010 Phil 428

  • G.R. No. L-4318 March 18, 1908 - UNITED STATES v. GENEROSO ACADEMIA

    010 Phil 431

  • G.R. No. L-4147 March 19, 1908 - AGRIPINO DE LA RAMA v. CONCEPCION SANCHEZ, ET AL.

    010 Phil 432


    010 Phil 435

  • G.R. No. L-3904 March 20, 1908 - KO POCO v. H. B. McCOY

    010 Phil 442

  • G.R. No. L-4104 March 20, 1908 - JAO IGCO v. W. MORGAN SHUSTER

    010 Phil 448

  • G.R. No. L-4155 March 20, 1908 - RUPERTO BELZUNCE v. VALENTINA FERNANDEZ

    010 Phil 452

  • G.R. No. L-4158 March 20, 1908 - UNITED STATES v. MATEO CARIÑO

    010 Phil 456

  • G.R. No. L-4196 March 20, 1908 - BENWIT ULLMANN v. FELIX ULLMANN and CO.

    010 Phil 459


    010 Phil 472

  • G.R. No. L-4399 March 20, 1908 - BENITO LEGARDA v. S. L. P. ROCHA Y RUIZDELGADO

    010 Phil 474

  • G.R. No. L-4436 March 20, 1908 - UNITED STATES v. FRANCISCO CASTRO DI TIAN LAY

    010 Phil 476

  • G.R. No. 4109 March 21, 1908 - UNITED STATES v. JULIANA TORRES

    011 Phil 606

  • G.R. No. L-3968 March 21, 1908 - UNITED STATES v. MARCOS LOPEZ

    010 Phil 479

  • G.R. No. L-3975 March 21, 1908 - UNITED STATES v. ANGEL MARIN

    010 Phil 481

  • G.R. No. L-4167 March 21, 1908 - RAFAELA SALMO v. LUISA ICAZA

    010 Phil 485

  • G.R. No. L-4300 March 21, 1908 - MARIA BARRETTO v. LEONA REYES

    010 Phil 489

  • G.R. No. L-4324 March 21, 1908 - UNITED STATES v. CASIMIRO OLLALES

    010 Phil 493

  • G.R. No. L-3550 March 23, 1908 - GO CHIOCO v. INCHAUSTI & CO.

    010 Phil 495

  • G.R. No. L-3780 March 23, 1908 - UNITED STATES v. PEDRO SELLANO

    010 Phil 498

  • G.R. No. L-4132 March 23, 1908 - IN RE: MARIA SIASON Y MADRID DE LEDESMA

    010 Phil 504

  • G.R. No. L-4215 March 23, 1908 - LUCIO I. LIMPANGCO v. JUANA MERCADO

    010 Phil 508

  • G.R. No. L-4274 March 23, 1908 - JOSE ALANO v. JOSE BABASA

    010 Phil 511

  • G.R. No. L-4352 March 24, 1908 - UNITED STATES v. RICARDO BAYOT

    010 Phil 518

  • G.R. No. L-2674 March 25, 1908 - JOAQUIN JOVER Y COSTAS v. INSULAR GOV’T., ET AL.

    010 Phil 522

  • G.R. No. L-3357 March 25, 1908 - UNITED STATES v. A. W. PRAUTCH

    010 Phil 562

  • G.R. No. L-4012 March 25, 1908 - MAXIMO CORTES Y PROSPERO v. CITY OF MANILA

    010 Phil 567

  • G.R. No. L-4063 March 25, 1908 - UNITED STATES v. JUAN MARIÑO, ET AL.

    010 Phil 571

  • G.R. No. L-4091 March 25, 1908 - UNITED STATES v. BERNABE BACHO

    010 Phil 574

  • G.R. No. L-4354 March 25, 1908 - UNITED STATES v. CANDIDO POBLETE

    010 Phil 578

  • G.R. No. L-4418 March 25, 1908 - UNITED STATES v. ANDRES V. ESTRADA

    010 Phil 583

  • G.R. No. L-3339 March 26, 1908 - ROSA LLORENTE v. CEFERINO RODRIGUEZ

    010 Phil 585

  • G.R. No. L-3812 March 26, 1908 - PHIL. SUGAR ESTATES DEV’T. CO. v. BARRY BALDWIN

    010 Phil 595

  • G.R. No. L-4100 March 26, 1908 - MARIA SINGAYAN v. CALIXTA MABBORANG

    010 Phil 601

  • G.R. No. L-4121 March 26, 1908 - UNITED STATES v. PEDRO GARCIA

    010 Phil 603

  • G.R. No. L-4175 March 26, 1908 - A. W. BEAN v. B. W. CADWALLADER CO.

    010 Phil 606

  • G.R. No. L-4207 March 26, 1908 - JUAN VALLE v. SIXTO GALERA

    010 Phil 619

  • G.R. No. L-4265 March 26, 1908 - UNITED STATES v. LUIS PASCUAL

    010 Phil 621

  • G.R. No. L-4322 March 26, 1908 - INOCENTE MARTINEZ v. G. E. CAMPBELL

    010 Phil 626

  • G.R. No. L-4376 March 26, 1908 - UNITED STATES v. LIM SIP

    010 Phil 627

  • G.R. No. L-4420 March 26, 1908 - UNITED STATES v. NARCISO CAGUIMBAL

    010 Phil 630

  • G.R. No. 4160 March 26, 1908 - ANGEL GUSTILO, ET AL. v. FEDERICO MATTI, ET AL.

    011 Phil 611

  • G.R. No. 3539 March 27, 1908 - MANUEL RAMIREZ, ET AL. v. INSULAR GOVERNMENT

    011 Phil 617

  • G.R. No. 4372 March 27, 1908 - ENRIQUE M. BARRETTO v. CITY OF MANILA

    011 Phil 624

  • G.R. No. L-3612 March 27, 1908 - DOMINGO LIM v. JOSE LIM

    010 Phil 633


    010 Phil 637

  • G.R. No. L-4037 March 27, 1908 - LIM JAO LU v. H. B. McCOY

    010 Phil 641

  • G.R. No. L-4200 March 27, 1908 - UNITED STATES v. SEGUNDO SAMONTE

    010 Phil 642

  • G.R. No. L-4203 March 27, 1908 - MANUEL CRAME SY PANCO v. RICARDO GONZAGA

    010 Phil 646

  • G.R. No. L-4469A March 27, 1908 - FELIPE G. CALDERON v. JOSE MCMICKING

    010 Phil 650

  • G.R. No. L-4017 March 28, 1908 - UNITED STATES v. PEDRO MARIÑO

    010 Phil 652


    010 Phil 659

  • G.R. No. L-4198 March 30, 1908 - JUAN MERCADO v. JOSE ABANGAN

    010 Phil 676

  • G.R. No. L-4222 March 30, 1908 - UNITED STATES v. BASILIO CERNIAS

    010 Phil 682

  • G.R. No. L-4281 March 30, 1908 - JOSE GARRIDO v. AGUSTIN ASENCIO

    010 Phil 691

  • G.R. No. L-4377 March 30, 1908 - UNITED STATES v. VICENTE GARCIA GAVIERES

    010 Phil 694

  • G.R. No. L-3469 March 31, 1908 - JOSEFA AGUIRRE v. MANUEL VILLABA

    010 Phil 701

  • G.R. No. L-4078 March 31, 1908 - CONCEPCION MENDIOLA v. NICOLASA PACALDA

    010 Phil 705


    010 Phil 707