Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1911 > March 1911 Decisions > G.R. No. L-6059 March 3, 1911 - UNITED STATES v. ARCADIO BERNALES

018 Phil 525:




PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

EN BANC

[G.R. No. L-6059. March 3, 1911.]

THE UNITED STATES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. ARCADIO BERNALES, Defendant-Appellant.

Filomeno Diaz for Appellant.

Acting Attorney-General Harvey for Appellee.

SYLLABUS


1. "ROBO EN CUADRILLA;" SUFFICIENCY OF EVIDENCE. — Facts in this case examined and found sufficient to sustain a conviction for the crime of robo en cuadrilla.

2. TESTIMONY BY A PRINCIPAL OR AN ACCOMPLICE. — While the testimony of an accomplice, or of a principal, against a fellow criminal, is to be taken with caution and weighed with care, it is, nevertheless, true that such testimony may, in a proper case, be used as the basis of a conviction.


D E C I S I O N


MORELAND, J.:


This is an appeal by Arcadio Bernales from a judgment of conviction of the Court of First Instance of the Province of Capiz of the crime of robo en cuadrilla.

On the 18th day of August, 1909, the appellant was sentenced by the Hon. Jose C. Abreu, judge of the Court of First Instance aforesaid, to ten years’ imprisonment and to restore to the injured parties the sum of P1,359.35, of which they had been robbed.

It appears that the appellant was one of nine persons who were tried for the crime or robo en cuadrilla, six of whom, including the appellant, were convicted, three as authors and three as accomplices. Of the remaining three, two were acquitted for lack of evidence and the third was used as a witness for the prosecution. Arcalio Bernales is the only one who appealed.

It appears that on the night of the 13th day of April, 1909, while four Chinese merchants were proceeding in a baroto from the pueblo of Pontavedra, Province of Capiz, where they lived, to the capital of the province, they were assaulted and robbed of the sum of P2,150 by the three defendants, Anastacio Bernales, Candelario Budiao, and Guillermo Bula, who acted in concert with the other defendants, Benito Buaron, Eladio Buaron, and Vicente Balida, who accompanied said merchants as boteros. Of the sum stolen P791.15 was recovered.

The prosecution assert that the appellant, Arcadio Bernales, was the persons who induced his coadjutors to commit the crime and that he received the greater part of the booty. In support of its contention the prosecution presented as a witness Guillermo Bula, one of those who took part in the robbery, who related in detail the facts constituting the commission of the crime, including the part taken by the appellant as an inducer, and the subsequent division of the property between the criminals. The testimony of this witness was richly corroborated by many circumstances surrounding the transaction which were drawn from other witnesses and sources during the trial. It was shown that one of the sacks, containing the sum of P308.05, which was a part of the spoils of the robbery, was found buried beneath the house where the appellant was accustomed to go frequently and in the very spot where, after the robbery, he had been seated on his heels engaged in something.

The appellant limited his defense to a simple denial that he had anything whatever to do with the crime or its perpetrators and asserted that he knew nothing whatever of the robbery. His denial is corroborated by two of his coaccused, Anastacio Bernales and Candelario Budiao. The question to be determined is whether or not the denial of the appellant and of these two witnesses, who, it must be remembered, were convicted and sentenced but did not appeal, is overcome by the testimony of Guillermo Bula, corroborated as it is by certain suspicious circumstances, including the fact, above noted, that part of the stolen money was found buried in the place where the appellant was seen seated on his heels engaged in doing something.

Guillermo Bula, 39 years of age, married, and a resident of the barrio of Cogon, municipality of Panitan, testified that on Tuesday, the day of the crime, his coaccused, Anastacio Bernales, came to his house and, under the pretext of obtaining his aid in certain work, induced him to accompany him to his house in Pontevedra, where he found the appellant and the other coaccused, Candelario Budiao. There these individuals revealed to the witness their purpose to rob the Chinese merchants that were about to start from Pontevedra for Capiz. That as witness made objections to the danger which was to be met in such action, they assured him that the boteros who were accompany the merchants were cognizant of their purposes and would offer no objection or resistance whatever.

Having been finally induced by the appellant and his companions to assist his coaccused to commit the robbery, the witnesses, Anastacio and Candelario, started immediately in a baroto, proceeding to the place where the robbery was committed. There they lay in wait for the Chinamen and, when they arrived, surprised and assaulted them and robbed them of the trunk which contained their money. The crime consummated, they immediately returned to the house where they had left the Appellant. Arriving there, they awoke the appellant, who immediately joined the three in the baroto, and the four ascended the river, where they disembarked and carrying the trunk ashore, it was at once taken possession of by Arcadio, who broke it open and took from it the sacks containing the money. Opening the various sacks the appellant took all of the paper money which they contained and put it in his pocket, saying to his three companions that this kind of money was not proper for them. He then divided the silver money into seven separate portions, corresponding to the seven individuals, including himself, who had taken part in the enterprise. Of these seven portions one was delivered to Anastacio, another to Candelario, and one to the witness. Arcadio took charged of the four remaining portions. The witness received three bundles of 50 pesos each and four of 25 pesos each, making a total of P250. Soon thereafter the witness returned to his own barrio, arriving there about 2 o’clock of the night. Two days later Anastacio came again to the witness’s house and the latter accompanied him to Dumarao, leaving his P250 in the care of his wife. In Dumarao Anastacio and the witness separated, the former going to Passi and the witness to Tinaytan. Before separating, Anastacio gave to the witness P26 to take to his wife, because Anastacio had not given her any part of the booty, the result of the robbery. While he was still in Tinaytan the witness was arrested and the money which had thus been delivered to him by Anastacio fell into the hands of the Constabulary.

Paula Cordenillo, wife of Guillermo Bula and sister-in-law of Anastacio Bernales, corroborated her husband by asserting in her testimony that Anastacio came to her house on a certain day in April and that the following day her husband came home with P250. He buried the money, but it was found later by Guillermo Daynato and Eustaquio Delgado.

Guillermo Daynato testified that on the 19th day of April he went to the barrio of Cogon and recovered P250 which had been buried in a place that was pointed out to him by Paula Cordenillo, wife of Guillermo Bula. The following day the witness found another sum of P150 that had been buried near the place where he found the P250. The place where the P150 was buried was pointed out to him by an old woman called Juana, mother-in-law of Anastacio Bernales.

Pelagio Visnal, presidente of Pontevedra, testified that the wife of Benito Buaron (one of the convicted boteros) told him that a child called Fermin Buaron, brother of Benito Buaron, had asserted that he, the child, had seen Arcadio Bernales burying something one night under his house. Acting upon this information the witness went to the house in question, in company with the child Fermin, who indicated the place where he had seen the appellant, Arcadio Bernales, engaged in burying something. On excavating in the place indicated by the child the witness found a sack of money containing P308.05. The witness further stated that although he had known the appellant a long time he had never known of his having engaged in any kind of trade or occupation, but supposed that he worked in his house.

Ten Lua, one of the Chinese merchants who were the victims of the robbery, testified that P750 of the money stolen belonged to him; that the money was contained in sacks placed in a trunk; that said trunk was taken from him and his companions by violence by the witness Guillermo Bula and the two coaccused, Anastacio Bernales and Candelario Budiao; that the robbery was committed about 8 o’clock of the evening of the 13th day of April while he and his companions were going to Capiz in a baroto. On being shown the sack which had been found under the house where the appellant had been seen burying something, the witness recognized it as one of the sacks, which had contained the stolen money.

Of the total sum of P2,150, two sums, one of P180 and another of P24, making in all P204, consisted of paper money. The rest was silver.

The child Fermin, to whom the presidente of Pontevedra referred in his declaration, testified that he was a brother of the botero Benito Buaron, one of the convicted robbers; that the appellant lived with the brothers of the witness, Benito and Eladio, and the accused Vicent Balida, brother-in-law of Benito; that after the witness learned of the commission of the robbery, he saw the appellant doing something under the house of the latter’s mother-in-law, a woman called Aya, where later was found the money which had been buried.

Upon the testimony thus presented the learned trial court found the appellant guilty as one of the authors of the crime charged and sentenced him accordingly. There remains no shadow of doubt that the appellant is guilty of the crime charged. While the testimony of an accomplice, or of a principal against a fellow criminal, is to be taken with caution and weighted with care, it is, nevertheless, true that such testimony nay, in a proper case, be used as the basis of a conviction. In this case the testimony of the witness Guillermo Bula is no thoroughly and decisively corroborated and supported by the testimony of other witnesses and by the circumstances surrounding the transaction from its beginning to its close, and even up to and including the arrest of the defendants, that there remains no doubt of the truthfulness of the witness in giving that testimony. The penalty imposed being within the limits prescribed by the law, the judgment of conviction and the sentence imposed thereunder are affirmed, with costs against the Appellant.

Arellano, C.J., Mapa, Carson and Trent, 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






March-1911 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. Nos. L-5600 and 5602 March 2, 1911 - FROEHLICH & KUTTNER v. INSULAR COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS

    018 Phil 461

  • G.R. No. L-6064 March 2, 1911 - UNITED STATES v. SY-SUIKAO

    018 Phil 482

  • G.R. No. L-6289 March 2, 1911 - JOSE M. ARROYO v. MATIAS GRANADA

    018 Phil 484

  • G.R. No. L-6300 March 2, 1901

    UNITED STATES v. JACINTA MATA, ET AL.

    018 Phil 490

  • G.R. No. L-6411 March 2, 1911 - UNITED STATES v. PEDRO REYES

    018 Phil 495

  • G.R. No. L-6423 March 2, 1911 - UNITED STATES v. SIMEON QUIAOIT

    018 Phil 499

  • G.R. No. L-6457 March 2, 1911 - UNITED STATES v. ISIDRO MADAMBA

    018 Phil 501

  • G.R. No. L-6486 March 2, 1911 - UNITED STATES v. RAFAEL B. CATOLICO

    018 Phil 504

  • G.R. No. L-6510 March 2, 191

    UNITED STATES v. POLICARPIO GAVARLAN

    018 Phil 510

  • G.R. No. L-5969 March 3, 1911 - UNITED STATES v. CEFERINO BENITEZ, ET AL.

    018 Phil 513

  • G.R. No. L-6050 March 3, 1911 - UNITED STATES v. EMILIANO RAMOS

    018 Phil 518

  • G.R. No. L-6059 March 3, 1911 - UNITED STATES v. ARCADIO BERNALES

    018 Phil 525

  • G.R. No. L-6330 March 6, 1911 - UNITED STATES v. JUAN ORACION, ET AL.

    018 Phil 530

  • G.R. No. L-6493 March 9, 1911 - UNITED STATES v. AGATON NER

    018 Phil 534

  • G.R. No. L-5446 March 10, 1911 - MANUEL CEA v. MARIANO P. VILLANUEVA

    018 Phil 538

  • G.R. No. L-6409 March 10, 1911 - UNITED STATES v. TOMAS CRUZ

    018 Phil 543

  • G.R. No. L-5554 March 11, 1919

    JUAN NOEL v. GERONIMO GODINEZ, ET AL.

    018 Phil 546

  • G.R. No. L-5619 March 11, 1919

    ENGRACIO ORENSE v. CIRILIO JAUCIAN

    018 Phil 553

  • G.R. No. L-5752 March 11, 1911 - UNITED STATES v. LORENZO SISON

    018 Phil 557

  • G.R. No. L-6102 March 11, 1911 - UNITED STATES v. RUFINO DINEROS

    018 Phil 566

  • G.R. No. L-6110 March 11, 1911 - UNITED STATES v. NARCISO DUCO

    019 Phil 1

  • G.R. No. L-6177 March 11, 1911 - UNITED STATES v. JULIANA BRIOSO

    019 Phil 3

  • G.R. No. 6189 March 11, 1911 - FAUSTINO LICHAUCO v. TEODORO LIMJUCO, ET AL.

    019 Phil 12

  • G.R. No. L-6343 March 11, 1911 - UNITED STATES v. MANUEL RODRIGUEZ

    019 Phil 23

  • G.R. No. L-6445 March 11, 1911 - UNITED STATES v. SILVINO MADAMBA

    019 Phil25cralaw:red

  • G.R. No. L-6483 March 11, 1911 - UNITED STATES v. FILEMON MENDEZ

    019 Phil 28

  • G.R. No. L-4641 March 13, 1911 - SEMINARY OF SAN CARLOS v. MUNICIPALITY OF CEBU

    019 Phil 32

  • G.R. No. L-5741 March 13, 1911 - ESTANISLAUA ARENAS v. FAUSTO O. RAYMUNDO

    019 Phil 46

  • G.R. No. L-5358 March 16, 1911 - LEE LIONG v. ISIDORO HIZOLA

    019 Phil 57

  • G.R. No. L-5729 March 16, 1911 - VICENTE PADILLA v. SIMEON LINSANGAN

    019 Phil 65

  • G.R. No. 6219 March 16, 1911 - UNITED STATES v. MARTIN DOMINGO

    019 Phil 69

  • G.R. No. L-6407 March 16, 1911 - FRANCISCA FERNANDEZ v. R.M. SHEARER

    019 Phil 75

  • G.R. No. L-6410 March 16, 1911 - ALEJANDRO TECSON v. LA CORPORACION DE LOS PP. DOMINICOS

    019 Phil 79

  • G.R. No. L-5174 March 17, 1911 - CANDIDO PASCUAL v. EUGENIO DEL SAZ OROZCO

    019 Phil 82

  • G.R. No. L-5759 March 17, 191

    WALTER E. OLSEN & CO. v. MATSON

    019 Phil 102

  • G.R. No. 6485 March 17, 1911 - GUTIERREZ HERMANOS v. ORIA HERMANOS

    019 Phil 104

  • G.R. No. L-6002 March 18, 1911 - AMERICAN SURETY OF NEW YORK, ET AL. v. PRUDENCIO BATANGAN

    019 Phil 110

  • G.R. No. L-6061 March 18, 1911 - UNITED STATES v. MATEO PADO, ET AL.

    019 Phil 111

  • G.R. No. L-6082 March 18, 1911 - UNITED STATES v. ISIDRO VICENTILLO

    019 Phil 118

  • G.R. No. L-6231 March 18, 1911 - CELESTINO SYTIAR CLEMENTE v. AMBROSIO MARASIGAN

    019 Phil 120

  • G.R. No. 6365 March 18, 1911 - CANUTA GUERRERO v. EULALIO SINGSON, ET AL.

    019 Phil 122

  • G.R. No. 6469 March 18, 1911 - UNITED STATES v. EUSTAQUIO SIMBAHAN

    019 Phil 123

  • G.R. No. 6378 March 20, 1911 - UNITED STATES v. PELAGIO CAPA, ET AL.

    019 Phil 125

  • G.R. No. 6624 March 20, 1911 - UNITED STATES v. PEDRO BANILA

    019 Phil 130

  • G.R. No. L-6160 March 21, 1911 - UNITED STATES v. DANIEL NAVARRO

    019 Phil 134

  • G.R. No. L-6230 March 21, 1911 - A.R. HAGER v. ALBERT J. BRYAN

    019 Phil 138

  • G.R. No. 6276 March 21, 1911 - TOMASA M. SANTIAGO ET AL. v. MARCELA C. CRUZ

    019 Phil 145

  • G.R. No. 6344 March 21, 1911 - UNITED STATES v. MANUEL RODRIGUEZ, ET AL.

    019 Phil 150

  • G.R. No. 6481 March 21, 1911 - UNITED STATES v. QUINTIN MONDEJAR

    019 Phil 158

  • G.R. No. 5688 March 22, 1911 - HENRY BLUM v. MARIANO BARRETTO

    019 Phil 161

  • G.R. No. 6432 March 22, 1911 - UNITED STATES v. PEDRO BALAGTAS, ET AL.

    019 Phil 164

  • G.R. No. L-6008 March 23, 1911 - UNITED STATES v. FAUSTINA ORTIZ, ET AL.

    019 Phil 174

  • G.R. No. L-6128 March 23, 1911 - UNITED STATES v. SILVESTRE ARZADON

    019 Phil 175

  • G.R. No. 6427 March 23, 1911 - UNITED STATES v. CONSTANCIO FLORES

    019 Phil 178

  • G.R. No. 6491 March 23, 1911 - UNITED STATES v. TAMPACAN, ET AL.

    019 Phil 185

  • G.R. No. L-5815 March 24, 1911 - UNITED STATES v. PALA, ET AL.

    019 Phil 190

  • G.R. No. L-3026 March 25, 1911 - UNITED STATES v. MELCHOR BABASA

    019 Phil 198

  • G.R. No. L-5333 March 25, 1911 - UY ALOC, ET AL. v. CHO JAN LING, ET AL.

    019 Phil 202

  • G.R. No. L-5640 March 25, 1911 - BENIGNO GOITIA v. CHARTERED BANK OF INDIA

    019 Phil 206

  • G.R. No. L-5843 March 25, 191

    UNITED STATES v. CANUTO GUSTILO

    019 Phil 208

  • G.R. No. L-6016 March 25, 1911 - ANDRES PUNZALAN v. SISENANDO FERRIOLS

    019 Phil 214

  • G.R. No. L-6019 March 25, 1911 - JUAN N. ARAGON v. INSULAR GOVERNMENT

    019 Phil 223

  • G.R. No. 6372 March 27, 1911 - UNITED STATES v. PASCUAL MOLINA

    019 Phil 227

  • G.R. No. 6354 March 28, 1911 - UNITED STATES v. EDUARDO SALAZAR, ET AL.

    019 Phil 233

  • G.R. No. L-5939 March 29, 1911 - JOSE MARIN v. VALENTINA NACIANCENO

    019 Phil 238

  • G.R. No. 6760 March 29, 1911 - NICOLAS E. NUÑEZ v. CHAS. A. LOW

    019 Phil 244

  • G.R. No. 6044 March 30, 1911 - MANUEL M. PADIN v. R. E. HUMPHEMREYS, ET AL.

    019 Phil 254

  • G.R. No. 4877 March 31, 1911 - CRISANTO LICHAUCO v. CHO-CHUN CHAC

    019 Phil 258