G.R. No. L-2853 - AUGUST 1906 - PHILIPPINE JURISPRUDENCE CASE NUMBERCASE TITLE G.R. No. L-2853August 30, 1906 United States vs. Melecio Flores G.R. No. L-2844August 30, 1906 United States vs. Samuel Saulo, et al. G.R. No. L-2821August 30, 1906 United States vs. Mariano Anastacio G.R. No. L-2767August 30, 1906 United States vs. Gorgonio de los Santos G.R. No. L-2736August 30, 1906 United States vs. Juan Giner G.R. No. L-2173August 30, 1906 Manila Navigation Company vs. Jose M. Quintero G.R. No. L-2806August 28, 1906 United States vs. Balbino Morales, et al. G.R. No. L-2768August 28, 1906 United States vs. Nazario Vallesteros G.R. No. L-2785August 23, 1906 United States vs. Jose Catajay G.R. No. L-2737August 23, 1906 United States vs. Eusebio Broce G.R. No. L-2732August 23, 1906 United States vs. F.W. Webster G.R. No. L-2714August 23, 1906 United States vs. Pablo Mallanao G.R. No. L-2658August 23, 1906 United States vs. Rosa Alcantara, et al. G.R. No. L-2550August 23, 1906 United States vs. Gabino Ventosa G.R. No. L-2510August 23, 1906 United States vs. Laureano Flores G.R. No. L-2752August 22, 1906 United States vs. Florentino Sayson G.R. No. L-2750August 22, 1906 United States vs. Santiago Aldos, et al. G.R. No. L-2358August 22, 1906 United States vs. Ang Kan Ko, et al. G.R. No. L-2891August 16, 1906 United States vs. Efipanio Maintud G.R. No. L-2741August 16, 1906 United States vs. Marcelo Leaño, et al. G.R. No. L-2926August 15, 1906 United States vs. Antonio Agaludud G.R. No. L-2549August 15, 1906 Unites States vs. Emeterio Dacanay G.R. No. L-2723August 9, 1906 United States vs. Bernardo Manalo, et al. G.R. No. L-2535August 9, 1906 United States vs. Juan Abad G.R. No. L-3430August 7, 1906 Rocha & Co. vs. S. Crossfield, et al. G.R. No. L-3018August 7, 1906 Higinio Francisco Yunti vs. The Chinaman Dy-Yco G.R. No. L-2688August 7, 1906 United States vs. Marciano Oruga G.R. No. L-2415August 7, 1906 United States vs. James W. Walsh, Jr. G.R. No. L-3007August 3, 1906 Roman Catholic Apostolic Church, et al. vs. Municipality of Badoc, et al. G.R. No. L-2664August 1, 1906 United States vs. Celestina Cañeta, et al. The Lawphil Project - Arellano Law Foundation, Inc. United States vs. Melecio Flores United States vs. Samuel Saulo, et al. United States vs. Mariano Anastacio United States vs. Gorgonio de los Santos United States vs. Juan Giner Manila Navigation Company vs. Jose M. Quintero United States vs. Balbino Morales, et al. United States vs. Nazario Vallesteros United States vs. Jose Catajay United States vs. Eusebio Broce United States vs. F.W. Webster United States vs. Pablo Mallanao United States vs. Rosa Alcantara, et al. United States vs. Gabino Ventosa United States vs. Laureano Flores United States vs. Florentino Sayson United States vs. Santiago Aldos, et al. United States vs. Ang Kan Ko, et al. United States vs. Efipanio Maintud United States vs. Marcelo Leaño, et al. United States vs. Antonio Agaludud Unites States vs. Emeterio Dacanay United States vs. Bernardo Manalo, et al. United States vs. Juan Abad Rocha & Co. vs. S. Crossfield, et al. Higinio Francisco Yunti vs. The Chinaman Dy-Yco United States vs. Marciano Oruga United States vs. James W. Walsh, Jr. Roman Catholic Apostolic Church, et al. vs. Municipality of Badoc, et al. United States vs. Celestina Cañeta, et al. The Lawphil Project - Arellano Law Foundation, Inc.
Republic of the Philippines
SUPREME COURT
Manila
EN BANC
G.R. No. L-2853 August 30, 1906
THE UNITED STATES,plaintiff-appellee,
vs.
MELECIO FLORES,defendant-appellant.
Maximino Mina, for appellant.
Office of the Solicitor-General Araneta, for appellee.
TRACEY,J.:
The conviction of the defendant for rape is based upon the testimony of the complainant alone, inasmuch as the two other witnesses for the prosecution corroborate her testimony on unimportant points only, not in dispute. Her story is contradicted by the accused and is inconsistent in detail. In cases of this kind the evidence of the complainant to justify the conviction of the defendant must be clear and must be corroborated (U.S.vs. Mamintud,1August 16, 1906), otherwise it fails to satisfy beyond a reasonable doubt, as required by U. S.vs. Dacotan ( 1 Phil., Rep., 669).
The complaint in this case should be dismissed and the defendant discharged with costsde oficio. So ordered.
Arellano, C.J., Torres, Mapa, Carson and Willard, JJ.,concur.
Footnotes
1Page 374,supra.