Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence

Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1908 > March 1908 Decisions > G.R. No. L-4200 March 27, 1908 - UNITED STATES v. SEGUNDO SAMONTE

010 Phil 642:



[G.R. No. L-4200. March 27, 1908. ]

THE UNITED STATES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. SEGUNDO SAMONTE, Defendant-Appellant.

Manuel Quezon, for Appellant.

Attorney-General Araneta, for Appellee.


1. REASONABLE DOUBT. — When testimony of the witnesses for the prosecution, as in the present case, is not wholly credible and there remains a reasonable doubt as to the guilt of the accused, he must be acquitted.



The accused was charged with the crime of frustrated murder, in that on the night of April 30, 1907, in the town of Tiaong, Tayabas Province, he fired his revolver at close range at one Simeon Ona, with intent to kill, and failed to accomplish his purpose solely because of the inaccuracy of his aim. The trial court found that he did not fire the revolver at Ona with intent to kill, but that he did fire the revolver in the air with intent to intimidate Ona and others, and convicted him of the crime of unlawfully discharging a firearm as defined and penalized in article 408 of the Penal Code.

The accused admitted that he discharged his revolver in the air just outside of Ona’s house, but alleged that when he did so he was attempting, with the aid of two policemen, to capture a number of gamblers who had been playing prohibited games of chance in Ona’s house, and that on account of their number he thought it prudent to fire his revolver in the air, partly to frighten them and prevent them from offering concerted resistance to his small party, and partly to prevent them from attempting to escape by fight.

Ona, the complaining witness, testified that the shots were fired as a result of a quarrel he had with the accused. This witness swore that for several months prior to the night of the shooting the accused had illicit relations with a niece of his wife who lived with the witness; that the accused, suspecting that this woman was untrue to him, and that he, Ona, was conniving at her infidelity, threatened his life a few hours before the shooting; that, frightened by the threats of the accused, he went to a neighbor’s house, where he stayed until about 8 o’clock in the evening, when he heard a great noise in his house and a shot fired, which he afterwards learned that the accused had fired at his niece; that he, Ona, then ran to the house to aid his family, and met the accused at the door; that the accused there and then fired his revolver at him, and that the ball passed so close that he could hear the bullet whistling in the air as it passed his head.

The trial judge refused to believe the version of the incident as related by the accused and his witnesses, and accepted the testimony of the complaining witnesses and his wife as substantially true, except in so far as they testified that the accused, when he fired his pistol, pointed it at the woman at the first shot and at the complaining witness at the second.

We do not think that the evidence of record sustains the findings of the trial court beyond a reasonable doubt.

The testimony of the accused, who at the time when the pistol was fired was presidente of the municipality, and the testimony of his two witnesses, the policemen who swore that they accompanied the accused to Ona’s house, is consistent, straightforward, and so far as can be gathered from the record, not unworthy of credence. The trial court seems to have been of opinion that the story told by the accused and his witnesses was perhaps too consistent, in that it suggests the possibility that it might have been confabulated and rehearsed for the occasion. It is not impossible that in this the trial judge was right; but the accused and his witnesses underwent a somewhat searching cross-examination, and on a review of all their testimony, we think that, giving the accused the benefit of the doubt, we would not be justified in holding their testimony to be false beyond a reasonable doubt, unless the evidence introduced by the prosecution was conclusive to a degree.

The evidence of the prosecution consists of the testimony of the complaining witness and his wife, corroborated, as to the actual firing of the shot said to have been aimed at the complaining witness, by the somewhat improbable testimony of a neighbor and friend, who swore that when he heard the first shot he hastened to Ona’s house to see what was the trouble.

The statement of this late witness was not believed by the trial court on the only point of importance as to which he testified. He stated that he saw the accused point his revolver and fire at Ona, while they were within about a yard and a half of each other, but the court found from all the evidence that the accused fired his pistol in the air. Except as to this point, there was nothing else of importance in his testimony, and we agree with the trial court that, in any view of the case, his evidence in this regard cannot be believed.

The whole weight of the prosecution rests on the testimony of the complaining witness, and that of his wife. The trial judge states in his opinion that he thinks that Ona’s statements were "exaggerated and that he evidenced a desire to have the accused convicted." We think that there can be little doubt that some of the material statements of this witness are false and that there are reasons to suspect that in making his complaint he may have been actuated by a desire for revenge, or by the hope of getting rid of a municipal official whose activity in prosecuting gamblers was obnoxious to him.

Ona admitted that gambling was habitually indulged in at his house and that he had been arrested for that offense some five or six months prior to the night in question. The policemen testified that he had been arrested for gambling a number of times, and that he was known in the municipality as a professional gambler. Ona testified, nevertheless, that he had always been on the warmest terms of friendship and intimacy with the accused up to the evening of the night of the shooting. The warmth of friendship of a professional gambler for a municipal official, who was actively engaged in seeking out and prosecuting gamblers, may well be questioned.

The air of improbability which marks Ona’s story as to his whereabouts prior to the incident, his sworn statement that he heard the whistling of the bullet fired from a revolver within a yard and half of his head, and a number of minor inconsistencies in his testimony as developed on cross-examination, all tend to raise a doubt in our minds as to the truth of the principal facts related by him; and while the trial court seemed to give great weight to the fact that the was corroborated as to the principal facts by the testimony of his wife, we do not think that the testimony of the couple, taken together, is so convincing as to establish the falsity of the testimony of the accused and his witnesses beyond a reasonable doubt.

Under all the circumstances, we are somewhat at a loss to understand why the woman, with whom Ona charges the accused with having illicit relations, was not called to the witness stand, and why no attempt was made to call disinterested witnesses to testify as to the existence of these relations. Ona’s evidence on this point, if believed, would indicate that the facts in this regard were notorious and well known to many persons in the community, and if this testimony were true, and if his testimony as to his own friendly relations with the accused were true, it would seem that it would not have been difficult to call witnesses who could corroborate the testimony of a vindictive witness, whose vindictiveness raises a doubt as to the truth of his uncorroborated charges.

The judgment of conviction and the sentence imposed upon the appellant should be, and are hereby, reversed with the costs of this instance 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