G.R. No. 1332 - MARCH 1905 - PHILIPPINE JURISPRUDENCE CASE NUMBERCASE TITLE G.R. No. 1332March 29, 1905 United States vs. Geronimo Luzon G.R. No. 1352March 29, 1905 United States vs. Apolonio Caballeros, et al. G.R. No. 1721March 29, 1905 United States vs. Charles H. Osborn G.R. No. 1726March 29, 1905 United States vs. Prudencio Sornito, et al. G.R. No. 1959March 29, 1905 United States vs. Felix Aguilar G.R. No. 1967March 29, 1905 United States vs. Francisco Alban G.R. No. 1214March 27, 1905 United States vs. Ramon Melencio G.R. No. 1580March 27, 1905 United States vs. Paulino Vallados G.R. No. 1740March 27, 1905 United States vs. Julio Gloria G.R. No. 1987March 27, 1905 United States vs. Apolonio Mañaul, et al. G.R. No. 1741March 25, 1905 United States vs. Ceferino Ibrado, et al. G.R. No. 1461March 24, 1905 United States vs. William A. Wilson G.R. No. 2270March 24, 1905 United States vs. Jose Diaz y Tan Bauco G.R. No. 2104March 23, 1905 Edward B. Merchant vs. Simplicio del Rosario G.R. No. 1654March 21, 1905 United States vs. Felix Mabiral, et al. G.R. No. 1749March 21, 1905 United States vs. Fortunato Odicta G.R. No. 1821March 21, 1905 United States vs. Pedro Ortega, et al. G.R. No. 1593March 20, 1905 United States vs. Benito Mercado G.R. No. 1803March 20, 1905 United States vs. George Herrman G.R. No. 1804March 20, 1905 United States vs. George Herrman G.R. No. 452March 18, 1905 In Re: Jose Robles Lahesa G.R. No. 1901March 18, 1905 United States vs. John M. Flemister G.R. No. 1459March 17, 1905 United States vs. John Mack G.R. No. 1605March 17, 1905 United States vs. Simeon Manayao, et al. G.R. No. 2012March 17, 1905 United States vs. Engracio Angel, et al. G.R. No. 1502March 16, 1905 United States vs. Benjamin M. Goodwin, et al. G.R. No. 1770March 16, 1905 Tomasa Fidelino vs. Benito Legarda G.R. No. 1941March 16, 1905 United States vs. Tiburcio Lazaro, et al. G.R. No. 892March 14, 1905 United States vs. Juan Luna G.R. No. 1503March 14, 1905 United States vs. Alejo Ravidas, et al. G.R. No. 1716March 14, 1905 United States vs. Isaias Aguasa, et al. G.R. No. 1902March 14, 1905 United States vs. Ludivico Isais, et al. G.R. No. 1611March 13, 1905 United States vs. Modesto Cabaya Cruz, et al. G.R. No. 1677March 13, 1905 United States vs. Alejo Caranto, et al. G.R. No. 1685March 13, 1905 United States vs. Pablo Corpus G.R. No. 1758March 13, 1905 United States vs. Macario Catigbac G.R. No. 1931March 13, 1905 United States vs. Jose Cariaso, et al. G.R. No. 1944March 13, 1905 United States vs. Jose Bucoy, et al. G.R. No. 1986March 13, 1905 United States vs. Juan Gatmaitan G.R. No. 2413March 13, 1905 Estaquia Salcedo, et al. vs. Amanda de Marcaida de Farias G.R. No. 1937March 10, 1905 United States vs. Tomas Doon G.R. No. 1420March 10, 1905 United States vs. Benito Castroverde, et al. G.R. No. 1996March 6, 1905 United States vs. Espiridion Roque, et al. G.R. No. 1193March 4, 1905 United States vs. Joseph Howard The Lawphil Project - Arellano Law Foundation, Inc. United States vs. Geronimo Luzon United States vs. Apolonio Caballeros, et al. United States vs. Charles H. Osborn United States vs. Prudencio Sornito, et al. United States vs. Felix Aguilar United States vs. Francisco Alban United States vs. Ramon Melencio United States vs. Paulino Vallados United States vs. Julio Gloria United States vs. Apolonio Mañaul, et al. United States vs. Ceferino Ibrado, et al. United States vs. William A. Wilson United States vs. Jose Diaz y Tan Bauco Edward B. Merchant vs. Simplicio del Rosario United States vs. Felix Mabiral, et al. United States vs. Fortunato Odicta United States vs. Pedro Ortega, et al. United States vs. Benito Mercado United States vs. George Herrman United States vs. George Herrman In Re: Jose Robles Lahesa United States vs. John M. Flemister United States vs. John Mack United States vs. Simeon Manayao, et al. United States vs. Engracio Angel, et al. United States vs. Benjamin M. Goodwin, et al. Tomasa Fidelino vs. Benito Legarda United States vs. Tiburcio Lazaro, et al. United States vs. Juan Luna United States vs. Alejo Ravidas, et al. United States vs. Isaias Aguasa, et al. United States vs. Ludivico Isais, et al. United States vs. Modesto Cabaya Cruz, et al. United States vs. Alejo Caranto, et al. United States vs. Pablo Corpus United States vs. Macario Catigbac United States vs. Jose Cariaso, et al. United States vs. Jose Bucoy, et al. United States vs. Juan Gatmaitan Estaquia Salcedo, et al. vs. Amanda de Marcaida de Farias United States vs. Tomas Doon United States vs. Benito Castroverde, et al. United States vs. Espiridion Roque, et al. United States vs. Joseph Howard The Lawphil Project - Arellano Law Foundation, Inc.

Republic of the Philippines
SUPREME COURT
Manila

EN BANC

G.R. No. 1332            March 29, 1905

THE UNITED STATES,plaintiff-appellee,
vs.
GERONIMO LUZON,defendant-appellant.

Jose M. Memije for appellant.
Office of the Solicitor-General Araneta for appellee.

JOHNSON,J.:

The defendant in this case was charged with the crime of illegal detention.

The evidence shows that on or about the 22d or 23d day of November, 1900, the defendant, in company with seven other individuals, six of whom were armed, went to the house of one Celedonia Santos, in the pueblo of Marilao, in the Province of Bulacan, between 12 and 1 o'clock in the night of said day, and by force and intimidation took possession of said Celedonia Santos and her husband, Gregorio Mistica, and also one Felipe Santos, and carried them away to the sitio of Tagalog, after robbing the house of the said Celedonia Santos.

The evidence further showed that Celedonia Santos was detained by the said accused and his companions for a period of nine days.

The whereabouts of Gregorio Mistica had not been discovered up to the time of the trial of the said cause. It was alleged but not proven that he had been assassinated by the said accused and his companions. Felipe Santos escaped from the custody of the defendant and his companions on the same night on which he was sequestrated by the defendant and his companions.

There is no evidence showing what property was taken by the band from the house of Celedonia Santos.

The defendant attempted to prove an alibi. The judge of the Court of First Instance of the Province of Bulacan, after hearing the evidence in said cause, sentenced the said defendant to be imprisoned for the period of seventeen years four months and one day ofcadena temporaland its accessories, and to pay the costs of the trial. The court imposed this sentence under paragraph 2 of article 483 of the Penal Code.

On the 3rd day of July, 1903, the attorney for the accused presented a motion before this court asking that the said defendant be included within the amnesty proclamation of the President of the United States, dated the 4th of July, 1902. After full consideration this court, in a divided opinion, denied said motion and held that the amnesty proclamation did not apply to the facts in this case.

On the 21st day of December, 1903, the attorney for the defendant presented a motion in this court asking that a new trial be granted in said cause.

On the 15th day of January, 1904, this court considered the motion for a new trial, and decided that the determination of that motion should be postponed until the consideration of the cause on its merits.

Section 42 of General Orders, No. 58, provides that at any time before the final entry of a judgment for conviction the defendant may move, either in the court in which the trial was had or upon appeal to a higher court, for a reopening of the case upon the ground of newly discovered evidence material to his defense.

The motion presented in this case does not stated that the evidence which the defendant would introduce on the new trial was newly discovered, or was discovered after the trial of the said cause. Neither does the motion point out what the evidence is, nor in what manner it would go to prove or disprove any of the facts presented during the trial or in what way the new trial would change the result of the first trial. The motion for a new trial upon the ground of newly discovered evidence will not be granted unless the following conditions exist:

1. The evidence must have been discovered since the trial.

2. It must be such that with the use of reasonable diligence on the part of the defendant it could not have been secured on the former trial.

3. It must be material and not merely collateral or cumulative or corroborative or impeaching.

4. It must be such as ought to produce a different result on the merits on another trial.

5. It must go to the merits, and not rest on merely a technical defense.

The motion for a new trial does not show that these condition exist. The motion is therefore denied.

The testimony relating to the charge of illegal detention in this case shows clearly that the accused, Geronimo Luzon, in company with the seven other individuals, six of whom were armed, went to the house of one Celedonia Santos on the 22nd or 23rd of November, 1900, between 12 and 1 o'clock at night, and did illegally take possession of the said Celedonia Santos and her husband, Gregorio Mistica, and, after robbing the house of the said Celedonia Santos, did take them away to the sitio of Tagalog, within the pueblo of Polo; that the said accused, with his companions, later took Gregorio Mistica to another sitio, and afterwards returned and said to Celedonia Santos that her husband, Gregorio Mistica, had been killed. (Folios 22, 23.)

The defendant and his companions illegally detained Celedonia Santos for a period of nine days, after which time she escaped from their possession. Celedonia Santos testified that she had not seen or heard from her husband since he was separated from her by the accused in the sitio of Tagalog, on the night of the illegal detention.

The evidence further shows that the defendant and his companions also on the same night took and illegally detained one Felipe Santos, but that he escaped from their possession on the same night.

The only defense offered by the defendant was that on the 22nd or 23rd of the month of November, 1900, he was in the barrio of Prinsa, in the house of one Vicente, sick, and that he had been in said barrio from the month of October.

The judge who tried the said defendant found the evidence showed that the defendant found the evidence showed that the defendant was guilty of the crime of illegal detention, defined and punished in paragraph 2 of article 483 of the Penal Code, and sentenced the said defendant, Geronimo Luzon, to be imprisoned for a period of seventeen years four months and one day ofcadena temporal, with its accessories, and to pay the costs. From this decision the defendant appealed to this court.

Paragraph 2 of article 483 provides:

The defendant here gave no testimony concerning the whereabouts of Gregorio Mistica, one of the persons illegally detained.

This court has held in the case of the United Statesvs.Baldomero Navarro et al.1(2 Off. Gaz., 551) that an accused person, under the Philippine bill, shall not be required in any criminal cause to be a witness against himself. This ruling was based upon section 5 of the act of Congress of July 1, 1902. It was held that this provision of the act of Congress repealed by implication paragraph 2 of article 483 of the Penal Code.

In criminal causes the prosecuting attorney must prove all of the essential facts constituting the crime and upon which the conviction and punishment is based. The defendant can not be required to give proof that may extenuate or aggravate the punishment. The accused has a perfect right to remain silent and his silence can not be used as a presumption of his guilt. Neither can the sentence be increased by reason of the fact that the defendant fails to give proof in favor of or against his culpability; he can not be convicted of a higher offense than that alleged in the complaint simply because he fails or refuses to testify.

Since the enactment of section 5 of the act of Congress of July 1, 1902, there is a difference between the old and the new procedure in vogue in the Philippine Islands. Under the old procedure the court had authority to examine the defendant in a prosecution for illegal detention and require him to testify as to the whereabouts of the person alleged to be illegally detained by him, or otherwise the court could increase the penalty. If the defendant answered that he had no knowledge of this fact, he was convicted under paragraph 2 of article 483 of the Penal Code. Under the present system the court can not require the defendant to testify, because the law exempts him from so doing; therefore the penalty may not be increased for his failure to furnish proof.

Under the old procedure in prosecutions for illegal detention where the defendant did not state the whereabouts of the person illegally detained, or should not prove that he had set said person at liberty, there was a presumption that the accused was guilt of homicide and not of illegal detention, and therefore the punishment was increased from that imposed for the crime of illegal detention simply.

It was argued that in the crime of libel the defendant might give evidence of the truth of the alleged libelous publication and if the accused was able to prove the truth of the publication and that the facts were published with good motives and for justifiable ends, he should be acquitted; otherwise he should be convicted. This provision of the law does not require the defendant to give proof, but gives him permission simply to resent the truth of the libelous publication as a defense to the crime of libel. Under the old law in force in the Philippines, the truth of the libelous publication was not admissible as a defense. The court has no authority to increase the punishment simply because the defendant does not interpose this defense afforded him by the law; while, under paragraph 2 of article 483 of the Penal Code, if the defendant fails or refuses to give testimony, the punishment may be actually increased.

It was also urged that under section 13 of Act No. 292 of the Commission the defendant is permitted to relieve himself from liability by giving information concerning the truth of the organization and purposes of certain secret societies. This provision does not justify the court in increasing the punishment for being a member of certain illegal secret societies, but simply relieves him from punishment under certain conditions; in other words, the law gives the defendant, in the crime of libel and in actions for belonging to illegal secret societies, etc., a defense which he may avail himself of or not, at his own option. These laws do not provide that, in case he fails to avail himself of the defense which the laws gives him, his punishment shall be increased. The defendant in these cases is not presumed to be guilty of any higher crime by reason of the fact that he fails to give evidence concerning the crime charged. He is simply held where he fails to avail himself of the defense which the law affords him for the specific offense charged in the complaint. He may avoid the penalty provided for by law in the case of libel and of liability for membership in an illegal secret society, in whole or in part, by testifying to and establishing the defense which the law affords him.

Under paragraph 2 of article 483 of the present Penal Code the defendant may be charged with the crime of illegal detention and unless he gives testimony concerning the whereabouts of the person illegally detained, or that he had set him at liberty, he may be punished upon the presumption that he is guilty of homicide, an entirely different offense from that charged in the complaint, to wit, illegal detention. Therefore, it is the judgement of this court that the sentence of the lower court be reversed, and, considering the aggravating circumstance of nocturnity, the defendant is hereby sentenced to be imprisoned for the period of seventeen years four months and one day ofreclusion temporaland to pay the costs of both instances. So ordered.

Arellano, C.J. and Torres, J.,concur.

Mapa and Carson, JJ.,concur with the results only, for the reason that the disappearance of Gregorio Mistica has not been proved.

Footnotes