Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1914 > March 1914 Decisions > G.R. No. 9066 March 7, 1914 - UNITED STATES v. ANASTASIO HUDIERES

027 Phil 45:




PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

FIRST DIVISION

[G.R. No. 9066. March 7, 1914. ]

THE UNITED STATES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. ANASTASIO HUDIERES and LAMBERTO SAGUN, Defendants-Appellants.

O’Brien & DeWitt for Appellants.

Solicitor-General Harvey for Appellee.

SYLLABUS


1. WITNESSES; EXAMINATION BY COURT. — The right of a trial judge to question witnesses, with a view to satisfying his mind upon any material point which presents itself during the trial of a case over which he presides, cannot be questioned in this jurisdiction.

2. ID.; ID. — Trial judges in this jurisdiction are judges both of the law and the facts, and they should not permit a miscarriage of justice by declining to propound a proper question to a witness which would develop some material fact upon which the judgment in the case should turn; so also in a case where a trial judge sees that the degree of credit which he is to give the testimony of a given witness may have an important bearing upon the outcome, there can be no question that in the exercise of a sound discretion he may put such questions to the witness as in his opinion will aid him in determining the ability or the willingness of the witness to tell the truth.


D E C I S I O N


CARSON, J. :


The defendants and appellants, together with two other unknown persons, were charged with the crime of asesinato and also with the crime of asesinato frustrado, in two separate informations. Upon the motion of the fiscal and with the approval of the court the two cases were called for trial and heard together.

Early on the evening of April 29, 1913, between the hours of 7 and 10 o’clock, Isidoro Montaño, the justice of the peace of Santa Barbara, Iloilo Province, was seated in this house conversing with three visitors named Pedro Sosteguer, Lucio Sumbang, and Nicasio Soguera. Suddenly two men armed with bolos entered the sala, one of whom seized the justice of the peace by hand struck hi across the forehead with a bolo. The justice of the peace picked up a chair and attempted to ward off the repeated blows of his assailants, and in retreating stumbled over another chair and fell to the ground. At this juncture Pedro Sosteguer came to this rescue and seizing this assailant by the leg, threw him on the floor, whereupon the other intruder struck Sosteguer across the stomach with his bolo. In the meantime the justice of the peace had managed to make his escape by one of the windows. Before the intruders left, one of them struck and wounded in the back a boy who had been sleeping on a bench in the kitchen and was awakened by the melee. The evidence conclusively establishes the prosecution’s contention that the men who entered the house and committed the assault were the defendants and appellants, who appear to have been well known personally to the justice of the peace and the other witnesses called for the prosecution. Ill-will engendered by litigation over a disputed boundary was shown to have been the motive which led the accused to attack the justice of the peace; the dispute between the defendant Hudieres and Montaño, the justice of the peace, having gone to such lengths that Hudieres had been arrested and confined in the municipal jail because of certain threats made by him against Montaño.

The defendants attempted to prove an alibi and called several witnesses who testified that they had seen them in the town of Cabatuan between the hours of 6 and 9 o’clock on the night of the assault. Without reviewing in detail the testimony of the witnesses for the defense, it is sufficient for us to say that we think the trial judge properly held it to be unworthy of credence. In itself it is neither satisfactory nor convincing, and it is wholly insufficient to put in doubt the clear, explicit, and positive identification of the defendants by the witnesses for the prosecution.

Counsel for appellants contends that the trial court erred: (1) In the method employed in the examination of witnesses for the defense, thus depriving the defendants of a fair and impartial trial; (2) in trying the defendants on three separate and distinct charges without the consent of the defendants; (3) in sentencing the defendants to the punishment of cadena perpetua without specifying to which particular charge the penalty applies; (4) in sentencing the defendants without rendering a final judgment on all of the charges and in construing the alleged acts as one act under article 89 of the Penal Code.

The first assignment of error has its basis in the claim of counsel that the trial judge went to unjustifiable lengths in examining some of the witnesses called for the defense. It is very clear, however, from a review of the whole proceedings that the only object of the trial judge in propounding these questions was to endeavor as far as possible to get at the truth as to the facts to which the witnesses were testifying. The right of a trial judge to question the witnesses with a view to satisfying his mind upon any material point which presents itself during the trial of a case over which he presides is too well established to need discussion. The trial judges in this jurisdiction are judges of both the law and the facts, and they would be negligent in the performance of their duties if they permitted a miscarriage of justice as a result of a failure to propound a proper question to a witness which might develop some material fact upon which the judgment in the case should turn. So in a case where a trial judge sees that the degree of credit which he is to give the testimony of a given witness may have an important bearing upon the outcome, there can be no question that in the exercise of a sound discretion he may put such questions to the witness as will enable him to formulate a sound opinion as to the ability or the willingness of the witness to tell the truth. The questions asked by the trial judge in the case at bar were in our opinion entirely proper, their only purpose being to clarify certain obscure phases of the case; and while we are inclined to agree with counsel that some of the observations of the trial judge in the course of his examination might well have been omitted, there is no reason whatever to believe that the substantial rights of the defendants were in anywise prejudiced thereby.

The second assignment of error is sufficiently disposed of by a reference to the doctrine laid down in the case of the United States v. Lampano (13 Phil. Rep., 409, 412).

The third assignment of error we think is wholly without merit, because a reading of the opinion and the judgment of the trial court clearly discloses that he found the defendants and appellants guilty of the acts charged in both informations, committed with treachery (alevosia), that is to say, of the crimes of assassination and frustrated assassination.

As to the forth assignment of error it must be admitted that the trial judge erred in failing to impose upon the defendants a separate penalty for the crime of frustrated assassination of which he found the defendants guilty in addition to the penalty of cadena perpetua, which is the medium agree of the penalty prescribed for the crime of assassination, of which he also found the defendants guilty. It appears that the trial judge regarded the acts committed by the defendants in killing one victim and in wounding the other two as a single offense, merged in the highest offense with which they were charged, all having been committed at one and the same time.

The trial judge evidently had in mind the provisions of article 89 of the Penal Code, which prescribes that where a single act constitutes two or more crimes, or where one crime is committed as a necessary means to commit the other, the penalty imposed for the more serious offense will be applied in its maximum degree. In imposing sentence he says, "These two crimes committed in one act will be considered as one act and of the highest crime committed."cralaw virtua1aw library

In the case at bar, however, the murder and the two separate assaults were manifestly separate and distinct offenses for each of which the accused were liable to trial and punishment. (U. S. v. Flemister, 1 Phil. Rep., 317, 354; 4 Phil. Rep., 300; 5 Phil. Rep., 650; 207 U. S., 372; U. S. v. Beecham, 15 Phil. Rep., 272; 336, 671, 672.) The cases contemplated in the eighty-ninth article of the Penal Code are of a wholly different character. (U. S. v. Ferrer, 1 Phil. Rep., 56, 62; U. S. v. Abijan, 1 Phil. Rep., 83, 85; U. S. v. Tanjuanco Et. Al., 1 Phil. Rep., 117; U. S. v. Llames, 1 Phil. Rep., 130, 132; U. S. v. Pascua, 1 Phil. Rep., 631, 632; U. S. v. Paraiso, 5 Phil. Rep., 149, 153; U. S. v. Maza, 5 Phil. Rep., 346, 349; U. S. v. Montiel, 9 Phil. Rep., 162, 167.)

The penalty imposed by the trial judge, which was that of cadena perpetua, being the medium degree of the penalty prescribed for the crime of assassination, is manifestly the penalty which should have been imposed upon the accused upon conviction of the unlawful taking of the life of Sosteguer, marked with the qualifying circumstance of treachery, and should therefore be affirmed. The failure of the trial judge to impose a separate penalty on account of the crime of frustrated assassination cannot be said to prejudice the defendants and appellants. The principal penalty imposed being that of cadena perpetua, we do not deem it necessary to return the record merely for the purpose of having an additional and smaller penalty imposed upon the defendants, nor to review the record ourselves with a view to determining the precise penalty which should be imposed.

The judgment of the trial court convicting the defendants and appellants of the crime of assassination without extenuating or aggravating circumstances, and sentencing them to cadena perpetua together with the accessory penalties prescribed by law should be and is hereby affirmed, with the costs of this instance against the appellants.

Arellano, C.J., Moreland, Trent and Araullo, JJ., concur.




Back to Home | Back to Main


chanrobles.com



ChanRobles Professional Review, Inc.

ChanRobles Professional Review, Inc. : www.chanroblesprofessionalreview.com
ChanRobles On-Line Bar Review

ChanRobles Internet Bar Review : www.chanroblesbar.com
ChanRobles CPA Review Online

ChanRobles CPALE Review Online : www.chanroblescpareviewonline.com
ChanRobles Special Lecture Series

ChanRobles Special Lecture Series - Memory Man : www.chanroblesbar.com/memoryman





March-1914 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. 9267 March 2, 1914 - UNITED STATES v. GERVASIO GUMARANG ET AL.,

    027 Phil 1

  • G.R. No. 9291 March 2, 1914 - UNITED STATES v. CAMILA CUNANAN

    027 Phil 6

  • G.R. No. 8254 March 3, 1914 - MARIANO GONZAGA ET AL. v. FELISA GARCIA ET AL.

    027 Phil 7

  • G.R. No. 8913 March 3, 1914 - NELLIE LOUISE COOK v. J. MCMICKING

    027 Phil 10

  • G.R. No. 9201 March 3, 1914 - UNITED STATES v. PABLO SUAN

    027 Phil 12

  • G.R. No. 8223 March 4, 1914 - UNITED STATES v. EVARISTO PAINAGA

    027 Phil 18

  • G.R. No. 7657 March 6, 1914 - AMBROSIO TIEMPO v. VIUDA E HIJOS DE PLACIDO REYES

    027 Phil 33

  • G.R. No. 8429-27 March 7, 1914 - CITY OF MANILA v. EVARISTO BATLLE ET AL.

    027 Phil 34

  • G.R. No. 8662 March 7, 1914 - UNITED STATES v. HERMOGENES BESUÑA

    027 Phil 39

  • G.R. No. 8699 March 7, 1914 - LA COMPAÑIA GENERAL DE TABACOS DE FILIPINAS v. SHERIFF OF OCCIDENTAL NEGROS

    027 Phil 41

  • G.R. No. 8983 March 7, 1914 - UNITED STATES v. EULOGIO EDPALINA

    027 Phil 43

  • G.R. No. 9066 March 7, 1914 - UNITED STATES v. ANASTASIO HUDIERES

    027 Phil 45

  • G.R. No. 7946 March 9, 1914 - CITY OF MANILA v. SATURNINA RIZAL

    027 Phil 50

  • G.R. No. 8227 March 9, 1914 - ANTONIO M. JIMENEZ v. FIDEL REYES

    027 Phil 52

  • G.R. No. 8325 March 10, 1914 - C. B. WILLIAMS v. TEODORO R. YANGCO

    027 Phil 68

  • G.R. No. 8927 March 10, 1914 - ASUNCION NABLE JOSE ET AL. v. MARIA IGNACIA USON ET AT.

    027 Phil 73

  • G.R. No. 9147 March 10, 1914 - UNITED STATES v. PERFECTO LAMADRID ET AL.

    027 Phil 76

  • G.R. No. 8603 March 13, 1914 - SEVERINO CORNISTA v. SEVERA TICSON

    027 Phil 80

  • G.R. No. 8984 March 13, 1914 - UNITED STATES v. JUAN LABIAL

    027 Phil 82

  • G.R. Nos. 9471 & 9472 March 13, 1914 - UNITED STATES v. EVARISTO VAQUILAR

    027 Phil 88

  • G.R. No. 8748 March 14, 1914 - UNITED STATES v. SANTOS P. PALMA

    027 Phil 94

  • G.R. No. 8931 March 14, 1914 - UNITED STATES v. JUAN MARQUI

    027 Phil 97

  • G.R. No. 8971 March 14, 1914 - UNITED STATES v. CIRILO BAUA

    027 Phil 103

  • G.R. No. 9006 March 14, 1914 - JOSE ANTONIO GASCON ENRIQUEZ v. A.D. GIBBS

    027 Phil 110

  • G.R. No. 9059 March 14, 1914 - UNITED STATES v. BUENAVENTURA SARMIENTO

    027 Phil 121

  • G.R. No. 9099 March 14, 1914 - J. MCMICKING v. SPRUNGLI & CO. ET AL.

    027 Phil 125

  • G.R. No. 9169 March 14, 1914 - UNITED STATES v. PANTELEON MARIANO ET AL.

    027 Phil 132

  • G.R. No. 9348 March 14, 1914 - UNITED STATES v. ELEUTERO MANTE

    027 Phil 134

  • G.R. No. 7352 March 15, 1914 - CATALINO HILLARO v. LA CONGREGACION DE SAN VICENTE DE PAUL

    027 Phil 593

  • G.R. No. 8140 March 16, 1914 - FORTUNATO GASPAR v. ANACLETO QUINADARA

    027 Phil 139

  • G.R. No. 8851 March 16, 1914 - AGAPITO BONZON v. STANDARD OIL CO. OF NEW YORK ET AL.,

    027 Phil 141

  • G.R. No. 8200 March 17, 1914 - LEONARDO LUCIDO v. GELASIO CALUPITAN ET AL.

    027 Phil 148

  • Special proceeding March 17, 1914 - IN RE: EUGENIO DE LARA

    027 Phil 176

  • G.R. No. 7333 March 18, 1914 - DEMETRIO ARCENAS v. ESTANISLAO LASERNA

    027 Phil 599

  • G.R. No. 7790 March 19, 1914 - EL BANCO ESPANOL-FILIPINO v. MCKAY & ZOELLER

    027 Phil 183

  • G.R. No. 8235 March 19, 1914 - ISIDORO SANTOS v. LEANDRA MANARANG

    027 Phil 209

  • G.R. No. 8414 March 19,1914

    ROMAN CATHOLIC ARCHIBISHOP OF MANILA v. DIRECTOR OF LANDS

    027 Phil 245

  • G.R. No. 8998 March 19, 1914 - JOSE FLORENDO v. EUSTAQUIO P. FOZ

    027 Phil 249

  • G.R. No. 9307 March 19, 1914 - UNITED STATES v. FRANCISCO GARCIA ET AL.

    027 Phil 254

  • G.R. No. 9098 March 20, 1914 - JOSE M. GONZALEZ v. PERCY M. MOIR

    027 Phil 256

  • Special proceeding March 21, 1914 - IN RE: LUICIANO DE LA ROSA

    027 Phil 258

  • G.R. No. 8937 March 21, 1914 - ALHAMBRA CIGAR AND CIGARETTE MANUFACTURING. CO. v. PEDRO N. MOJICA

    027 Phil 266

  • G.R. No. 9302 March 21, 1914 - UNITED STATES v. AGATON DUNGCA

    027 Phil 274

  • G.R. No. 6960 March 23, 1914 - VICENTE GUASH v. JUANA ESPIRITU

    027 Phil 278

  • G.R. No. 7909 March 24, 1914 - GUTIERREZ HERMANOS v. ISABEL RAMIREZ

    027 Phil 281

  • G.R. No. 8385 March 24, 1914 - LUCIO ALGARRA v. SIXTO SANDEJAS

    027 Phil 284

  • G.R. No. 8314 March 25, 1914 - M. A. CLARKE v. MANILA CANDY COMPANY

    027 Phil 310

  • G.R. No. 8461 March 25, 1914 - RAMON MEDINA ONG-QUINGCO v. CECILIO IMAZ

    027 Phil 314

  • G.R. No. 9124 March 25, 1914 - PIO MERCADO v. MARIA TAN-LINGCO

    027 Phil 319

  • Special Proceeding March 25, 1914 - IN RE: EMILIANO TRIA TIRONA

    027 Phil 323



  • G.R. No. 7721 March 25, 1914 - INCHAUSTI & CO. v. GREGORIO YULO

    034 Phil 978


  • G.R. No. 7420 March 25, 1914 - NAZARIO CABALLO ET AL. v. CIPRIANO DANDOY ET. AL.

    027 Phil 606

  • G.R. No. 7762 March 25, 1914 - BEHN v. JOSE MCMICKING

    027 Phil 612

  • G.R. No. 7593 March 27, 1914 - UNITED STATES v. JOSE M. IGPUARA

    027 Phil 619

  • G.R. No. 7647 March 27, 1914 - DOMINGO CALUYA v. LUCIA DOMINGO

    027 Phil 330

  • G.R. No. 7670 March 28, 1914 - CARMEN AYALA DE ROXAS v. CITY OF MANILA

    027 Phil 336

  • G.R. No. 8051 March 28, 1914 - UNITED STATES v. VICENTE MADRIGAL ET AL.

    027 Phil 347

  • G.R. No. 9010 March 28, 1914 - J. H. CHAPMAN v. JAMES M. UNDERWOOD

    027 Phil 374

  • G.R. Nos. 9619 & 9620 March 28, 1914 - NGO YAO TIT EL AL. v. SHERIFF OF THE CITY OF MANILA

    027 Phil 378

  • G.R. No. 7270 March 29, 1914 - GREGORIO JIMENEZ ET AL. v. PASCUALA LOZADA ET AL.

    027 Phil 624

  • G.R. No. 7287 & 7288 March 29, 1914 - PEDRO MONTIERO v. VIRGINIA SALGADO Y ACUÑA

    027 Phil 631

  • G.R. No. 7896 March 30, 1914 - JOSE MCMICKING v. CRISANTO LICHAUGO ET AL.

    027 Phil 386

  • G.R. No. 8313 March 30, 1914 - JOSE MA. Y. DE ALDECOA v. JOSE FORTIS ET AL.

    027 Phil 392

  • G.R. No. 8362 March 30, 1914 - JOSE PEREZ PASTOR v. PEDRO NOEL ET AL.

    027 Phil 393

  • G.R. No. 8375 March 30, 1914 - INTERISLAND EXPRESS CO. v. INSULAR COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS

    027 Phil 396

  • G.R. No. 8478 March 30, 1914 - LUIS ESPERANZA v. ANDREA CATINDING

    027 Phil 397

  • G.R. No. 8527 March 30, 1914 - WEST COAST LIFE INSURANCE CO. v. GEO. N. HURD

    027 Phil 401

  • G.R. No. 8579 March 30, 1914 - UNITED STATES v. RUPERTO T. SANTIAGO

    027 Phil 408

  • G.R. No. 8654 March 30, 1914 - EUGENIO RESOLME ET AL. v. ROMAN LAZO

    027 Phil 416

  • G.R. No. 8689 March 30, 1914 - LIBRADO MANAS ET AL. v. MARIA RAFAEL

    027 Phil 419

  • G.R. No. 8781 March 30, 1914 - UNITED STATES v. ANTONIO JAVIER DICHAO

    027 Phil 421

  • G.R. No. 8785 March 30, 1914 - UY ALOC ET AL. v. CHO JAN LING ET AL.

    027 Phil 427

  • G.R. No. 9178 March 30, 1914 - UNITED STATES v. FELIPE LASTIMOSA

    027 Phil 432

  • G.R. No. 9217 March 30, 1914 - UNITED STATES v. GREGORIO MARTINEZ

    027 Phil 439

  • G.R. No. 9294 March 30, 1914 - UNITED STATES v. EULOGIO SANCHEZ

    027 Phil 442

  • G.R. No. 9329 March 30, 1914 - UNITED STATES v. SATURNINO AGUAS

    027 Phil 446

  • G.R. No. 9397 March 30, 1914 - UNITED STATES v. JOSE VAYSON

    027 Phil 447