Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1929 > March 1929 Decisions > G.R. No. 30305 March 25, 1929 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. BLANDINA ISTORIS

053 Phil 91:




PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

SECOND DIVISION

[G.R. No. 30305. March 25, 1929.]

THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. BLANDINA ISTORIS, Defendant-Appellant.

Jose M. Hontiveros and Benjamin H. Tirol for Appellant.

Attorney-General Jaranilla for Appellee.

SYLLABUS


1. CRIMINAL LAW; GUILT OF DEFENDANT; FINDINGS OF TRIAL COURT. — Although this court has repeatedly held that it would not disturb the findings of fact of the trial court as to the credibility of witnesses, nevertheless, when, as in the instant case, there is sufficient cause in the record to warrant a departure from such findings, proper corrections should be made, inasmuch as it is incumbent upon this court to determine the guilt or innocence of the defendant in view of the evidence presented during the trial, as held by the Supreme Court of the United States in the case of Pendleton v. United States (216 U. S., 305; 54 Law. ed., 491; 40 Phil., 1033).


D E C I S I O N


ROMUALDEZ, J.:


In this case against Blandina Istoris, the prosecution contends that she murdered her husband, Apolonio Barrientos, who, according to the defense, having been mentally unbalanced, is suspected to have committed suicide.

The Court of First Instance of Capiz sentenced her to twelve years and one day reclusion temporal, to indemnify the heirs of the deceased in the sum of P1,000, and to pay the costs.

She appeals from that judgment, and her counsel assigns several errors in his brief.

To our mind, the most important incriminating testimony, which is that given by Alfonso Sucgang Valeriano, suffers from such inconsistencies and improbabilities that we deem it dangerous in the interest of justice to accept it as the only evidence for the prosecution. The motive of the alleged aggression in view of the preceding facts, the form of the aggression itself in view of the details as related, the fearless cold-bloodedness displayed by this witness in sleeping quietly on the night in question in the same house where he assures us the crime was committed, almost at arm’s length from the corpse of the supposed victim, strange in themselves but altogether incongruous with the self-confessed timorous nature of this witness, constitute evidence unfavorable to the credibility of his testimony. If to this is added the refutation which is, to a certain degree effective, made by the defense against the veracity of the testimony of this witness, we become still more convinced of the scant value of such evidence of conviction.

Venancio Moises’ declaration, which in itself is difficult to believe, is, that while he was up in a coconut tree getting tuba, he saw the defendant and her companions hanging up the corpse in a camarin which, according to the evidence, was roofed, is not worthy of credit. Hilario Garcia’s testimony that the cries of help he heard were Apolonio Barrientos’, is mere hearsay from his brother. The testimony of the other witnesses presented by the prosecution is of little importance.

The evidence of the prosecution is not, to our mind, sufficient to hold the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt of the crime in question which, committed, according, according to the prosecution, in September, 1924, was only denounced in the year 1927, without satisfactorily explaining at the trial so prolonged a silence on the part of those who now claim to be aware of the crime, nor how Apolonio Barrientos’ death, caused by his own wife, could have been kept a secret so long.

Although this court has repeatedly held that it would not disturb the findings of fact of the trial court as to the credibility of witnesses, nevertheless, when, as in the instant case, we find sufficient cause in the record to warrant a departure from such findings, proper corrections should be made, inasmuch as it is incumbent upon this court to determine the guilt or innocence of the defendant in view of the evidence presented during the trial, as held by the Supreme Court of the United States in the case of Pendleton v. United States (216 U. S., 305; 54 Law. ed., 491; 40 Phil., 1033).

The appealed judgment is reversed, and the defendant is hereby acquitted, with costs de oficio, and all other favorable pronouncements. So ordered.

Johnson, Malcolm, Ostrand, Johns and Villa-Real, 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-1929 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. 30282 March 1, 1929 - SERAPION ADESER v. MATEO TAGO

    052 Phil 856

  • G.R. No. 30019 March 2, 1929 - KUI PAI & CO. v. DOLLAR STEAMSHIP LINE

    052 Phil 863

  • G.R. No. 30491 March 2, 1929 - DONATO CRUZ, ET AL. v. TEOFILO DE JESUS, ET AL.

    052 Phil 870

  • G.R. No. 30981 March 2, 1929 - ESTEBAN MONTERAMOS, ET AL. v. ISIDRO PAREDES

    052 Phil 873

  • G.R. No. 28532 March 4, 1929 - JESUS R. ROA v. CONCEPCION ROA, ET AL.

    052 Phil 879

  • G.R. No. 30382 March 5, 1929 - CEBU AUTOBUS CO. v. ANDRES D. DAMIAN

    052 Phil 883

  • G.R. No. 30814 March 5, 1929 - ROSALIO GONZALES v. DIRECTOR OF LANDS

    052 Phil 895

  • G.R. No. 30896 March 5, 1929 - HIGINO ENAGE v. FRANCISCO MARTINEZ

    052 Phil 896

  • G.R. No. 29462 March 7, 1929 - IGNACIO DEL PRADO v. MANILA ELECTRIC CO.

    052 Phil 900

  • G.R. Nos. 30012-15 March 7, 1929 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JOSEPH L. WILSON, ET AL.

    052 Phil 907

  • G.R. No. 30953 March 7, 1929 - NARCISA JAVIER v. ISIDRO PAREDES

    052 Phil 910

  • G.R. Nos. 30012-30015 March 9, 1929 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JOSEPH L. WILSON, ET AL.

    052 Phil 919

  • G.R. No. 30247 March 11, 1929 - HOSPICIO DE SAN JOSE v. FIDELITY AND SURETY COMPANY OF THE PHIL.

    052 Phil 926

  • G.R. No. 29752 March 12, 1929 - SOTERO IGNACIO v. SANTOS CHUA HONG

    052 Phil 940

  • G.R. No. 30264 March 12, 1929 - MANILA RALROAD COMPANY v. INSULAR COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS

    052 Phil 950

  • G.R. No. 30460 March 12, 1929 - C. H. STEINBERG v. GREGORIO VELASCO, ET AL.

    052 Phil 953

  • G.R. No. 29292 March 13, 1929 - TOMASA C. VIUDA DE PAMINTUAN v. JUAN TIGLAO

    053 Phil 1

  • G.R. No. 30393 March 14, 1929 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ESTANISLAO PERADILLA

    053 Phil 9

  • G.R. No. 29927 March 15, 1929 - PASAY TRANSPORTATION CO. v. MANILA ELECTRIC CO

    053 Phil 13

  • G.R. No. 30291 March 15, 1929 - CATALINO SEVILLA v. GAUDENCIO TOLENTINO

    053 Phil 16

  • G.R. No. 30035 March 18, 1929 - GOV’T. OF THE PHIL. v. ANASTASIA ABADILLA ET AL.

    053 Phil 23

  • G.R. No. 30780 March 18, 1929 - AURELIANO ROSANES v. AMADO PEJI

    053 Phil25cralaw:red

  • G.R. No. 30513 March 19, 1929 - VICENTE ARDOSA v. ESTEBAN DE LA RAMA ET AL.

    053 Phil 28

  • G.R. No. 30601 March 21, 1929 - ANTONIO CHUA CHIACO v. INSULAR COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS

    053 Phil 31

  • G.R. No. 32329 March 23, 1929 - In re LUIS B. TAGORDA

    053 Phil 37

  • G.R. No. 29503 March 23, 1929 - AGRIPINA GALLION v. NARCISO L. GAYARES ET AL.

    053 Phil 43

  • G.R. No. 30020 March 23, 1929 - ADELA ROMERO DE PRATTS v. MENZI & CO.

    053 Phil 51

  • G.R. No. 30067 March 23, 1929 - PAYATAS ESTATE IMPROVEMENT CO. v. MARIANO TUASON

    053 Phil 55

  • G.R. No. 30266 March 25, 1929 - ASIA BANKING CORPORATION v. FRED J. ELSER

    054 Phil 994

  • G.R. No. 29832 March 25, 1929 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. CANUTO ASINAS ET AL.

    053 Phil 59

  • G.R. No. 30074 March 25, 1929 - MARIANO CARAGAY v. FRANCISCO URQUIZA ET AL.

    053 Phil 72

  • G.R. No. 30242 March 25, 1929 - ROMAN CATHOLIC ARCHBISHOP OF MANILA v. ALVARA FAJARDO

    053 Phil 82

  • G.R. No. 30280 March 25, 1929 - NICANOR CARAG v. WARDEN OF THE PROVINCIAL JAIL

    053 Phil 85

  • G.R. No. 30305 March 25, 1929 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. BLANDINA ISTORIS

    053 Phil 91

  • G.R. No. 30600 March 25, 1929 - RAMON DELES v. ARELLANO ALKONGA

    053 Phil 93

  • G.R. No. 30705 March 25, 1929 - MACARIO E. CAESAR v. FILOMENO GARRIDO

    053 Phil 97

  • G.R. No. 30289 March 26, 1929 - SERAPIA DE GALA v. APOLINARIO GONZALES

    053 Phil 104

  • G.R. No. 30608 March 26, 1929 - RAFAEL CARANDANG v. GALICANO AFABLE

    053 Phil 110

  • G.R. No. 28379 March 27, 1929 - GOV’T. OF THE PHIL. v. CONSORCIA CABANGIS ET AL.

    053 Phil 112

  • G.R. No. 29448 March 27, 1929 - JOSE CASTILLO v. ESTEBAN VALDEZ ET AL.

    053 Phil 120

  • G.R. No. 29721 March 27, 1929 - AMANDO MIRASOL v. ROBERT DOLLAR CO.

    053 Phil 124

  • G.R. No. 29967 March 27, 1929 - JOSE GASTON ET AL. v. TALISAY-SILAY MILLING CO. ET AL.

    053 Phil 132

  • G.R. No. 30490 March 27, 1929 - BANK OF THE PHIL. v. ALBALADEJO Y CIA.

    053 Phil 141

  • G.R. No. 30514 March 27, 1929 - DIRECTOR OF LANDS v. CRISTOBAL ABAGAT ET AL.

    053 Phil 147

  • G.R. No. 30837 March 27, 1929 - POLICARPO RADAZA v. FRANCISCO D. ENAJE

    053 Phil 149

  • G.R. No. 30431 March 30, 1929 - Intestacy of Angel Gustilo v. PERPETUA SIAN

    053 Phil 155

  • G.R. No. 30541 March 30, 1929 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. ISLANDS v. JOSE BELLA BAUTISTA

    053 Phil 158

  • G.R. No. 30610 March 30, 1929 - MANUEL SALAK v. LUIS ESPINOSA

    053 Phil 162

  • G.R. No. 30648 March 30, 1929 - RUFINO FAUSTO v. JOSE VILLARTA

    053 Phil 166

  • G.R. No. 30836 March 30, 1929 - VICENTE OLANO v. BERNARDINO TIBAYAN

    053 Phil 168

  • G.R. No. 31348 March 30, 1929 - TAN C. TEE & CO. v. BEN F. WRIGHT

    053 Phil 172