Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1914 > March 1914 Decisions > G.R. No. 8931 March 14, 1914 - UNITED STATES v. JUAN MARQUI

027 Phil 97:




PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

FIRST DIVISION

[G.R. No. 8931. March 14, 1914. ]

THE UNITED STATES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. JUAN MARQUI, Defendant-Appellant.

Alejo Mabanag for Appellant.

Solicitor-General Harvey for Appellee.

SYLLABUS


1. CRIMINAL LAW; EVIDENCE; NEGOTIATIONS FOR COMPROMISE. — The weight of authority and reason sustains the rule which admits evidence of offers to compromise, in criminal cases, but permits the accused to show that such offers were not made under a consciousness of guilt, but merely to avoid the inconvenience of imprisonment or for some other reason which would justify a claim by the accused that the offer to compromise was not in truth an admission of his guilt and an attempt to avoid the legal consequences which would ordinarily ensue therefrom.

2. ID.; ARTICLE 11, PENAL CODE. — The beneficent provisions of article 11 of the Penal Code, as amended by Act No. 2142 of the Philippine Legislature, are peculiarly applicable to offenders who are shown to be members of those uncivilized tribes, and to other offenders who, as a result of the fact that their lives are cast with such people far away from the centers of civilization, appear to be so lacking in "instruction and education" that they should not be held to so high a degree of responsibility as is demanded of those citizens who have had the advantage of living their lives in contact with the refining influences of civilization.

3. ID.; ID.; THEFT AND ROBBERY. — While it is true that this court has quite uniformly held that convicts of the crimes of theft and robbery were not entitled to the benefits of the provisions of article 11 of the Penal Code prior to its amendment by Act No. 2142: Held, That under the provisions of the article thus amended, the courts may and should, even in cases of theft and robbery, take into consideration the lack of instruction and education of the offender where it appears that under all the circumstances attending the commission of the offense, he should not be held to the strict degree of responsibility prescribed in the Code for the ordinary offender.

4. ID.; ID.; ID. — Mere ignorance or lack of education will not always be sufficient to justify the mitigation of the prescribed penalties for crimes such as theft or robbery, though cases may and will arise wherein under all the "circumstances attending" the commission of these offenses the benefits of the provisions of this article as amended should be extended to convicts of these offenses.


D E C I S I O N


CARSON, J. :


The appellant in this case was convicted in the court below of the theft of a caraballa and her calf, and sentenced to imprisonment for a period of five years, to suffer the accessory penalties prescribed by law, and to pay his share of the costs of the proceedings.

Counsel for the accused contends that the trial court erred in giving probative value to the testimony of one Dagsa, the principal witness for the prosecution; in accepting proof as to certain extrajudicial admissions alleged to have been made by the accused, including an offer to compromise the case by the payment of a sum of money; and in declining to accept as true the testimony of the accused in his own behalf at the trial. We find nothing in the record, however, which would justify us in disturbing the findings of the trial judge as to the degree of credit which should be accorded the various witnesses called at the trial.

Counsel rests his contention that evidence as to the extrajudicial statements made by the accused should have been excluded on the ground that, as counsel insists, there is no formal proof in the record that they were made voluntarily, and that they were therefore inadmissible as proof in so far as they can be construed as admission or confessions of guilt. In answer to this contention it is sufficient to say that there is no suggestion in the record in the court below that these extrajudicial statements were not made voluntarily, and we are satisfied that if the evidence as to the circumstances under which these incriminating statements were made accepted as true it clearly rebuts the possibility that they were made involuntarily, or extorted by force, threats, or promise of reward. The record clearly discloses that these extrajudicial statements were made in the course of offers to compromise and that they were made by the accused voluntarily, though doubtless these offers to compromise were made in the hope that if accepted he would escape prosecution.

The question as to the admissibility of offers to compromise in criminal cases has frequently been discussed in the courts of the United States, and the practice there does not appear to be wholly uniform. We think, however, that the weight both of authority an of reason sustains the rule which admits evidence of offers to compromise, but permits the accused to show that such offers were not made under a consciousness of guilt, but merely to avoid the inconvenience of imprisonment or for some other reason which would justify a claim by the accused that the offer to compromise was not in truth an admission of his guilt and an attempt to avoid the legal consequences which would ordinarily ensue therefrom.

Satisfaction to the owner of the goods stolen is admissible, as evidence against the accused, but if made merely to avoid the inconvenience of imprisonment, and not under a consciousness of guilt, it is not evidence. (U. S. v. Hunter, 1 Cranch, C.C., 317.)

In a prosecution for seduction, evidence that the accused had sought an adjustment with the prosecutrix is inadmissible, if such offer of adjustment did not contain an admission of guilt. (Wilson v. State, 73 Ala., 527.)

On a prosecution for assault with intent to commit rape upon a married woman, evidence is admissible on behalf of the prosecution to show that the defendant sent a third person to the father of the prosecutrix to ascertain if the case could be compromised. (Barr v. People, 113 Ill., 471.)

In a larceny case, evidence is not admissible to show that defendant stated that he would pay $50 if it could be settled, in reply to threats by the owner of the goods stolen that he would prosecuted for damages, and a solicitation to settle. (Frain v. State, 40 Ga., 530.)

In a prosecution for larceny, evidence is not admissible that the defendant paid a sum of money in settlement of a civil action brought to recover the property alleged to have been stolen. (State v. Emerson, 48 Iowa, 172.)

An offer of compromise, voluntarily made by the accused, without threat or promise, and the reply thereto, are admissible in evidence upon his trial for a crime. (State v. Bruce, 33 La. Ann., 186.)

An offer compromise of a crime, unaccepted by the prosecutor, may be proven by the state as an admission of guilt, or as disclosing possession of the property which is the subject of the burglary and larceny charged in the indictment. (State v. Rodrigues, 45 La. Ann., 1040; 13 Southern, 802.)

It may be shown that the prisoner sent a message to the prosecutor, proposing to take a whipping and to be let go. (State v. DeBerry, 92 N. C., 800.)

We are satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt as to the guilt of the accused, but we are of opinion that in imposing the penalty the trial court should have taken into consideration as a mitigating circumstance the manifest lack of "instruction and education" of the offender. It does not clearly appear whether he is or is not an uncivilized Igorot, although there are indications in the record which tend to show that he is. But in any event, it is very clear that if he is not a member of an uncivilized tribe of Igorot, he is a densely ignorant and untutored fellow, who lived in the Igorot country, and is not much, if any, higher than are they in the scale of civilization. The beneficent provisions of article 11 of the Penal Code as amended by Act No. 2142 of the Philippine Legislature are peculiarly applicable to offenders who are shown to be members of these uncivilized tribes, and to other offenders who, as a result of the fact that their lives are cast with such people far away from the centers of civilization, appear to be so lacking in "instruction and education" that they should not be held to so high a degree of responsibility as is demanded of those citizens who have had the advantage of living their lives in contact with the refining influences of civilization.

It is true that this court has quite uniformly held that convicts of the crimes of theft and robbery are not entitled to the benefits of the provisions of article 11 of the Penal Code prior to its amendment by Act No. 2142, this on the theory that under the provisions of the article prior to its amendment the ground upon which the courts were authorized in their discretion to mitigate the penalties prescribed by the code was "the circumstance of the offender being a native, mestizo, or Chinese." As to crimes of this nature we declined to hold that the mere fact that one is a native of the Philippine Islands, a mestizo or a Chinese would justify a claim that upon conviction of crimes such as theft or robbery he should be treated more leniently than the members of any other race or people, no sound presumption arising from the mere racial affiliation of the convict that he was less able to appreciate the criminal character of such offenses or to resist the temptation to commit them than are they.

Under the provisions of the article as amended by Act No. 2142, the ground upon which the courts are authorized to mitigate the prescribed penalties is not the racial affiliation of the convict, but "the degree of instruction and education of the offender;" and while mere ignorance or lack of education will not always be sufficient to justify the mitigation of the prescribed penalties for crimes such as theft and robbery, there can be no doubt that cases may and will arise wherein under all the "circumstances attending" the commission of these offenses the exercise of a sound discretion will justify a more lenient treatment of an ignorant and semicivilized offender, than that which should be accorded one who has had the advantage of such a degree of instruction and education as would fully and properly understanding and appreciating the criminal character of the offense committed by him.

We conclude, therefore, that under the provisions of article 11 as amended by Act No. 2142, the courts may and should, even in cases of theft and robbery should, even in cases of theft and robbery, take into consideration the lack of instruction and education of the offender where it appears that under all the circumstances attending the commission of the offense, he should not be held to the strict degree of responsibility prescribed in the code for the ordinary offender.

The larceny was of large cattle and falls within articles 517, 518, and 520 of the Penal Code, as amended by Act No. 2030. According to those sections, as amended, the value of the animals stolen being 650 pesetas, a penalty one degree higher than arresto mayor in its medium degree to presidio correctional in its minimum degree should have been imposed; in other words, presidio correctional in its medium degree to presidio mayor in its minimum degree. Giving the convict the benefit of the provisions of article 11 of the Penal Code, as amended, this penalty should be imposed its minimum degree — that is to say, the penalty applicable in this case is that of presidio correctional in its medium degree.

Modified by imposing the penalty prescribed for the offense of which the defendant and appellant was convicted in the minimum degree — that is to say, by imposing upon accused the penalty of two years four months and one day of presidio correctional, in lieu of that of five years’ imprisonment imposed by the court below — the judgment convicting and sentencing him should be is hereby affirmed, with the costs of this instance against the Appellant.

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