Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1962 > April 1962 Decisions > G.R. No. L-15634 April 23, 1962 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JUANITO LLANTO:




PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

EN BANC

[G.R. No. L-15634. April 23, 1962.]

THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. JUANITO LLANTO, Defendant-Appellant.

Solicitor General for Plaintiff-Appellee.

Amado G. Salazar, for Defendant-Appellant.


SYLLABUS


1. EVIDENCE; ALIBI; POSSIBILITY FOR APPELLANT TO BE AT ONE PLACE AND COMMIT THE CRIME AT ANOTHER A FEW MINUTES LATER; USE OF JEEP AND PROXIMITY BETWEEN THE TWO PLACES. — Inasmuch as appellant was riding a jeep in the scene of the occurrence was not far away from the place where the band concert was being held, it was quite possible for him to have attended said concert, then slipped away, for a few minutes, while the concert was in progress, to commit the crime charged, and, immediately thereafter, rejoined the crowd hearing the concert.

2. ID.; CREDENCE; WHAT INCONSISTENCIES DO NOT AFFECT CREDENCE OF A TESTIMONY. — The credence of a testimony is not affected by inconsistencies which refer to minor details and collateral matters that do not affect either the substance of the declaration of its truthfulness.

3. ID.; ID.; POSITIVE IDENTIFICATION OF APPELLANT. — A witness who had known the appellant for several years prior to the occurrence, both having been employees of the same company, could not possibly have been mistaken as to the latter’s identity, considering, further, that at the time of the occurrence there was electric light, aside the moonlight, at the scene of the crime, and that about four (4) hours after the commission of the crime, when the witness was still too shaken to concoct a story falsely incriminating the appellant, the former positively stated that the killer was the appellant, which statement was fully confirmed by the residue of gun powder found on the appellant’s hands upon examination that morning.

4. ID.; WEIGHT OF ARTICLES WRITTEN BY ALLEGED EXPERTS; NEED FOR ESTABLISHING AUTHENTICITY OF ARTICLE AND QUALIFICATIONS OF AUTHOR. — In order that a written article on a given subject may be considered adequate evidence, its authenticity and the qualifications of its alleged author should first be established.


D E C I S I O N


CONCEPCION, J.:


Appeal, by Juanito Llanto, from a decision of the Court of First Instance of Batangas convicting him of the crime of murder and sentencing him to life imprisonment, with the accessory penalties prescribed by law, to indemnify the heirs of Laureano de la Peña in the sum of P6,000 and to pay the costs.

On March 6, 1958, while Laureano de la Peña was walking northward, along the national highway in the municipality of Sto. Tomas, Batangas a little after 11:00 p.m., someone fired at him, from behind, several times, thereby inflicting several bullet wounds that caused his death about 20 minutes after midnight.

It appears that Laureano was, at the time of the occurrence accompanied by Hipolito Estuista, whom the authorities located, soon thereafter, that same night. Upon investigation for with made by the local police force, Hipolito declared that Laureano’s assailant was Juanito Llanto. Meanwhile, another member of the local police force had asked Atanacio de la Peña, a son of the deceased, for information as to the possible identity of the culprit. Unaware, as yet, of Hipolito’s aforementioned statement, Atanacio unhesitatingly replied, for reasons hereafter to be stated, that the killer must be Juanito Llanto. Hence, the latter was immediately arrested and charged with murder.

The evidence for the prosecution shows that Laureano was a lineman of the Philippine Power and Development Co., which supplied electricity to the municipality of Sto. Tomas, Batangas; that Hipolito was an electrician of the same company; that in the morning of March 6, 1958, Hipolito was sent from Calamba, Laguna, to Sto. Tomas Batangas, to assist Laureano in the proper maintenance of the service during the town fiesta the next day; that sometime during the evening of March 6, a transformer, located at the southern part of the town, went out of order; that, accordingly, Laureano and Hipolito went to that place, to make the necessary repairs, which were completed sometime after 11:00 p.m.; that shortly after they had started leaving the place, Juanito Llanto appeared suddenly behind Laureano and opened fire at him; that, as Laureano fell down mortally wounded and Juanito Llanto ran away, Hipolito took refuge, thoroughly frightened, in a restaurant near a gasoline station by the roadside, where peace officers found him before day break; that, upon submission to a paraffin test, made that same morning, between 10:30 and 11:00 o’clock, gunpowder residue was found on both hands of Juanito Llanto.

It further appears that the latter used to be another employee of the Philippine Power & Development Co.; that about two (2) months prior to the occurrence, Laureano had, while on vacation leave, repaired a transformer of the company; that this was resented by Juanito Llanto because, being the one then on duty, the repairs should have been undertaken by him: that Juanito Llanto became so angry that he went to the house of Laureano and challenged him and the members of his family; that Juanito Llanto even threatened to kill whoever came out of the house on said occasion; and that, three (3) weeks later, Juanito Llanto ceased to be employed in said company.

Appellant set up an alibi. He would have us believe that, at the time of the occurrence, he was in a jeep, attending a band concert, some 300 meters east of the municipal building of Sto. Tomas, Batangas, together with municipal councilor Jorge Nora and Bienvenido Modelo. These two (2) and police sergeant Pedro Francisco tried to corroborate appellant. However, the lower court found their testimony unworthy of credence, and the record before us does not warrant interference with the conclusion reached by His Honor, the trial Judge. Moreover, inasmuch as appellant was riding a jeep and the scene of the occurrence was not far away from the place where the band concert was being held, it was quite possible for him to have attended said concert, then slipped away, for a few minutes, while the concert was in progress, to commit the crime charged, and, immediately thereafter, rejoined the crowd hearing the concert.

Verily, we find no plausible reason to doubt the veracity of Hipolito Estuista, the main witness for the prosecution. The defense lays stress upon some inconsistencies in his testimony, but said inconsistencies refer to minor details and collateral matters that do not affect either the substance of his declaration or its truthfulness. Appellant, also, claims that Hipolito’s testimony deserves no credence, because of a misunderstanding they had allegedly had in 1954 and another one in 1957. Hipolito denied, however, such misunderstandings, apart from the fact that, even if the same had really happened, they were far from being sufficiently serious to prompt the false imputation of a crime as grave as that charged in this case.

Upon the other hand, Hipolito could not possibly have been mistaken as to the identity of the culprit, not only because he had known Juanito Llanto for several years prior to the occurrence, both having been employees of the same electric company, but, also, because there was electric light, aside from the moonlight, at the scene of the crime. Then, too, about four (4) hours after its commission, when Hipolito had not had sufficient time, and was still too shaken, to concoct a story falsely incriminating Juanito Llanto, the former positively stated that the killer was the latter, and this statement was fully confirmed by the residue of gunpowder found on his hands upon examination made that same morning.

In an attempt to discredit or weaken the testimony of Capt. Crispin D. Garcia regarding the paraffin test to which appellant herein had been submitted, the defense introduced an article, said to have been written by Henry W. Turkle and Jerome Lipman, on the "Unreliability of Dermal Nitrate Test of Gunpowder." However, the defense has not established either the authenticity of said article or the qualifications of its alleged authors. Such evidence is clearly inadequate, therefore, to offset the testimony of Capt. Garcia on his findings indicating a great probability that appellant had fired a gun a few hours before he was subjected to the aforesaid test.

Appellant denied, also, that he had had with Laureano de la Peña the incident testified to by his son, Atanacio de la Peña. Appellant admitted, however, that he had gone to the house of the De la Peñas, on the occasion referred to by Atanacio, although it was with the latter, not with Laureano, with whom, he (appellant) said, he had an altercation. Besides, Atanacio denied, on rebuttal, having had said altercation with appellant, and a review of the record does not show that the lower court had erred in accepting the version of Atanacio and rejecting that of Appellant.

Being in accordance with the facts and the law, the decision appealed from is hereby affirmed, with costs against appellant Juanito Llanto. It is so ordered.

Bengzon, C.J., Bautista Angelo, Labrador, Reyes, J.B.L., Paredes and Dizon, 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






April-1962 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. L-18462 April 13, 1962 - MENELEO B. BERNARDEZ v. FRANCISCO T. VALERA

  • G.R. No. L-13704 April 18, 1962 - BENJAMIN T. ASUNCION v. LUZ DE ASIS DE AQUINO, ETC. ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-15162 April 18, 1962 - PHILIPPINE AMERICAN DRUG CO. v. COURT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-16642 April 18, 1962 - ANTONIO RAGUDO, ET AL. v. EMELITA R. PASNO

  • G.R. No. L-16864 April 18, 1962 - VALDERRAMA LUMBER MANUFACTURERS’ CO. INC. v. VICENTE N. CUSI, JR., ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. L-19440 and L-19447 April 18, 1962 - CESAR CLIMACO, ET AL. v. HIGINIO B. MACADAEG, ET AL.

  • A.C. No. 518 April 23, 1962 - DOMINADOR CARLOS v. BENIGNO PALAGANAS

  • G.R. No. L-11816 April 23, 1962 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. OSCAR CASTELO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-14716 April 23, 1962 - TERESA REALTY, INC. v. JOSE SISON

  • G.R. No. L-15499 April 23, 1962 - ANGELA M. BUTTE v. MANUEL UY & SONS, INC.

  • G.R. No. L-15634 April 23, 1962 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JUANITO LLANTO

  • G.R. No. L-15714 April 23, 1962 - LORENZA FABIAN, ET AL. v. EULOGIO MENCIAS, ETC., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-15778 April 23, 1962 - TAN TIONG BIO, ET AL. v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE

  • G.R. No. L-15892 April 23, 1962 - FERNANDO LACSON, ET AL. v. BACOLOD CITY, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-16665 April 23, 1962 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. IRINEO SANTELLA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-17344 April 23, 1962 - TALISAY-SILAY MILLING CO., INC. v. COURT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-17349 April 23, 1962 - NATIONAL SHIPYARDS AND STEEL CORPORATION v. MARTIN ARTOZ, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-12219 April 25, 1962 - FRANCISCO PASCUAL v. COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS

  • G.R. No. L-13918 April 25, 1962 - CALTEX (PHILIPPINES) INC. v. KATIPUNAN LABOR UNION

  • G.R. No. L-14530 April 25, 1962 - LEONA AGLIBOT, ET AL. v. ANDREA ACAY MAÑALAC, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-14591 April 25, 1962 - PINDAÑGAN AGRICULTURAL COMPANY, INC. v. JOSE P. DANS, ETC., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-15080 April 25, 1962 - IN RE: RICARDO R. CARABALLO v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. L-15404 April 25, 1962 - ILDEFONSO SUZARA v. HERMONES CALUAG, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-16066 April 25, 1962 - ENCARNACION BACANI, ET AL. v. FELICISIMA PAZ SAMIA GALAURAN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-16856 April 25, 1962 - OLIVO G. RUIZ v. CEDAR V. PASTOR

  • G.R. No. L-16954 April 25, 1962 - ARMINIO RIVERA v. LITAM & COMPANY, INC., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-16997 April 25, 1962 - RAMCAR INCORPORATED v. DOMINGO GARCIA

  • G.R. No. L-17016 April 25, 1962 - WORLDWIDE PAPER MILLS, INC. v. LABOR STANDARDS COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-12174 April 26, 1962 - MARIA B. CASTRO v. COLLECTOR OF INTERNAL REVENUE

  • G.R. No. L-14455 April 26, 1962 - LINO GUTIERREZ v. LUCIANO L. MEDEL, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-15369 April 26, 1962 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. TIMOTEO CRUZ, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-15427 April 26, 1962 - SAN MIGUEL BREWERY, INC. v. ELPIDIO FLORESCA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-15638 April 26, 1962 - HERMOGENES CONCEPCION, JR. v. FRANCISCO F. GONZALES IV

  • G.R. No. L-16384 April 26, 1962 - IN RE: JAYME S. TAN v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

  • Nos. L-17325 and L-16594 April 26, 1962


  • SYLLABUS


    1. TAXATION; PERCENTAGE TAXES; FORFEITURE OF BOND WITHIN TEN YEARS. — Upon the execution of a bond to guarantee the payment of an internal revenue tax, the tax-payer, as principal, and the bondsman, as surety, assumed an obligation entirely distinct from the tax and became subject to an entirely different kind of liability. A bond being a written contract imposing rights and liabilities, the government, pursuant to article 1144 of the new Civil Code, has the right to take court action for its forfeiture within 10 years from the accrual of the right of action.

    2. ID.; ID.; ID.; SECTION 332 (c) OF REVENUE CODE NOT APPLICABLE. — Section 332 (c) of the Revenue Code, is not applicable to actions for forfeiture of bonds. The period of limitation provided in this section is evidently confined to actions for the collection of taxes.

    3. ID.; ID.; ID.; PRESCRIPTIVE PERIOD FOR PAYMENT OF TAX INTERRUPTED BY EXECUTION OF BOND. — Obligations contracted in a bond by a tax-payer constitute written acknowledgments of the debt and interrupt the 5-year period of prescription for the payment of tax.

    G.R. No. L-15265 April 27, 1962 - BAGUIO GOLD MINING COMPANY v. BENJAMIN TABISOLA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-16467 April 27, 1962 - FLORENTINA MATA DE STUART v. NICASIO YATCO

  • G.R. No. L-11964 April 28, 1962 - REGISTER OF DEEDS OF MANILA v. CHINA BANKING CORPORATION

  • G.R. No. L-12116 April 28, 1962 - MACARIA TINIO DE DOMINGO v. COURT OF AGRARIAN RELATIONS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-12570 April 28, 1962 - VICENTE PAZ, ETC., ET AL. v. COURT OF AGRARIAN RELATIONS, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. L-14166 & L-14320 April 28, 1962 - FINLEY J. GIBBS, ET AL. v. COLLECTOR OF INTERNAL REVENUE, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-14231 April 28, 1962 - CATALINO BALBECINO, ET AL. v. WENCESLAO M. ORTEGA, ETC., ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. L-14546-47 April 28, 1962 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. BASILIO PADUA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-14833 April 28, 1962 - OROMECA LUMBER CO., INC. v. SOCIAL SECURITY COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-15089 April 28, 1962 - TEODULO DOMINGUEZ, ET AL. v. ROMAN B. DE JESUS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-15338 April 28, 1962 - CALTEX REFINERY EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION-PAFLU v. ANTONIO LUCERO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-16005 April 28, 1962 - MANILA ELECTRIC COMPANY v. PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION

  • G.R. No. L-16172 April 28, 1962 - ARSENIO SUMILANG v. GUALBERTO CASTILLO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-16219 April 28, 1962 - NATIVIDAD VERNUS-SANGCIANGCO v. DIOSDADO SANGCIANGCO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-16716 April 28, 1962 - PEDRO R. JAO, ET AL. v. ROYAL FINANCING CORPORATION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-16804 April 28, 1962 - FRANCO J. ALTOMONTE v. PHILIPPINE AMERICAN DRUG COMPANY

  • G.R. No. L-17044 April 28, 1962 - EUSTAQUIO JUAN, ET AL. v. VICENTE ZUÑIGA ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-17047 April 28, 1962 - ATLANTIC MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY v. MANILA PORT TERMINAL, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-17247 April 28, 1962 - C. N. HODGES v. ELPIDIO JAVELLANA, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. L-17481 & L-17537-59 April 28, 1962 - LIBERATA ANTONIO ESTRADA, ET AL. v. COURT OF AGRARIAN RELATIONS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-17887 April 28, 1962 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. RODOLFO SANTOS

  • G.R. No. L-18751 April 28, 1962 - A. C. ESGUERRA & SONS v. DOMINADOR R. AYTONA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-10909 April 30, 1962 - ADELAIDA TABOTABO, ET AL. v. AGUEDO TABOTABO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-16843 April 30, 1962 - GONZALO PUYAT & SONS INC. v. PHILIPPINE NATIONAL BANK

  • G.R. No. L-17082 April 30, 1962 - MERCEDES RAFFIÑAN v. FELIPE L. ABEL

  • G.R. No. L-17378 April 30, 1962 - NORTHWEST AIRLINES, INC. v. NORTHWEST AIRLINES PHILIPPINES EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION, ET AL.