G.R. No. L-2676 - MARCH 1906 - PHILIPPINE JURISPRUDENCE CASE NUMBERCASE TITLE G.R. No. L-2676March 31, 1906 United States vs. Eustaquio Horca G.R. No. L-2336March 31, 1906 Joaquin Pellicena Camacho vs. Leoncio Gonzalez Liquete G.R. No. L-1922March 31, 1906 City of Manila vs. Francisco Gambe G.R. No. L-1202March 31, 1906 Francisco Saez Co-Tiongcovs. Co-Quing-Co G.R. No. L-1009March 31, 1906 United States vs. Ignacio Santa Maria G.R. No. L-2969March 29, 1906 United States vs. Francisco J. Reyes G.R. No. L-2735March 29, 1906 United States vs. Francisco Reyes G.R. No. L-1458March 29, 1906 Max L. Fornow vs. J.C. Hoffmeister G.R. No. L-2733March 27, 1906 United states vs. Nicolas Arceo G.R. No. L-2695March 26, 1906 United States vs. Domingo Ysip G.R. No. L-2603March 26, 1906 United States vs. Frank de L. Carrington G.R. No. L-2521March 22, 1906 Rafael S. Molina vs. Antonio de la Riva G.R. No. L-2292March 22, 1906 Unites States vs. Francisco Castro G.R. No. L-2570March 21, 1906 United States vs. Anastacio Asuncion, et al. G.R. No. L-2575March 17, 1906 Maria de la Concepcion Martinez Cañas vs. Municipality of san Mateo G.R. No. L-2457March 17, 1906 United States vs. Aniceto Dadacay, et al. G.R. No. L-2327March 17, 1906 Luis Perez Samanillo vs. W.A. Whaley, et al. G.R. No. L-2116March 16, 1906 Bernardino Cacino, et al. vs. Lazaro Baens G.R. No. L-3139March 15, 1906 Alejandro Santos vs. Celestino Villafuerte G.R. No. L-2600March 15, 1906 United States vs. Frank de L. Carrington G.R. No. L-2452March 15, 1906 Matilde Ballester vs. Gonzalo Legaspi G.R. No. L-2020March 15, 1906 Germann & Co., et al. vs. Luis R. Yangco, et al. G.R. No. L-1974March 15, 1906 Roman Catholic Apostolic Church in the Philippines vs. A.W. Hastings, et al. G.R. No. L-2434March 9, 1906 W.L. Wright vs. Alfred F. Smith, et al. G.R. No. L-2430March 9, 1906 W.L. Wright vs. Alfred F. Smith, et al. G.R. No. L-1928March 9, 1906 United States vs. Nicamedes Dinglasan, et al. G.R. No. L-2645March 8, 1906 Francisca Cabreros vs. Victorino Prospero G.R. No. L-2500March 8, 1906 Maria dela Concepcion Martinez Cañas vs. Mariano Tuason, et al. G.R. No. L-1451March 6, 1906 United States vs. Aurelio Tolentino G.R. No. L-2763March 3, 1906 W.L. Wright vs. Alfred F. Smith, et al. G.R. No. L-1904March 3, 1906 Francisco Gonzalez Quiros vs. carlos Palanca Tan-Guinlay The Lawphil Project - Arellano Law Foundation, Inc. United States vs. Eustaquio Horca Joaquin Pellicena Camacho vs. Leoncio Gonzalez Liquete City of Manila vs. Francisco Gambe Francisco Saez Co-Tiongcovs. Co-Quing-Co United States vs. Ignacio Santa Maria United States vs. Francisco J. Reyes United States vs. Francisco Reyes Max L. Fornow vs. J.C. Hoffmeister United states vs. Nicolas Arceo United States vs. Domingo Ysip United States vs. Frank de L. Carrington Rafael S. Molina vs. Antonio de la Riva Unites States vs. Francisco Castro United States vs. Anastacio Asuncion, et al. Maria de la Concepcion Martinez Cañas vs. Municipality of san Mateo United States vs. Aniceto Dadacay, et al. Luis Perez Samanillo vs. W.A. Whaley, et al. Bernardino Cacino, et al. vs. Lazaro Baens Alejandro Santos vs. Celestino Villafuerte United States vs. Frank de L. Carrington Matilde Ballester vs. Gonzalo Legaspi Germann & Co., et al. vs. Luis R. Yangco, et al. Roman Catholic Apostolic Church in the Philippines vs. A.W. Hastings, et al. W.L. Wright vs. Alfred F. Smith, et al. W.L. Wright vs. Alfred F. Smith, et al. United States vs. Nicamedes Dinglasan, et al. Francisca Cabreros vs. Victorino Prospero Maria dela Concepcion Martinez Cañas vs. Mariano Tuason, et al. United States vs. Aurelio Tolentino W.L. Wright vs. Alfred F. Smith, et al. Francisco Gonzalez Quiros vs. carlos Palanca Tan-Guinlay The Lawphil Project - Arellano Law Foundation, Inc.
Republic of the Philippines
SUPREME COURT
Manila
EN BANC
G.R. No. L-2676 March 31, 1906
THE UNITED STATES,complainant-appellee,
vs.
EUSTAQUIO HORCA,defendant-appellant.
Francisco Enaje, for appellant.
Office of the Solicitor-General Araneta, for appellee.
ARELLANO,C.J.:
The court below found that the act committed by the defendant, and it is so charged in the complaint, constitutes the crime of robbery. The Attorney-General contends in this court that the crime committed was that of threats (amenazas), as defined and penalized in article 494, number 1, of the Penal Code.
This difference of opinion arises from the different manner in which they view the acts which preceded the delivery of the 130 pesos by Narciso Rile, while a prisoner in the municipal building of Jaro, Leyte, to the defendant, Eustaquio Horca, then president of the town, who had ordered his arrest.
The real facts in the case are: That Narciso Rile was arrested by order of the municipal president for some act, as Rile, himself, says, something which occurred in front of his house, but as the defendant Horca testified, for the murder of a signal corps sergeant; that while he was detained in the municipal building Rile's wife brought the sum of money in question there; that this money was delivered by Rile to the defendant, Horca; and that three days after his arrest, Rile was set at liberty.
Whether Rile paid this money because Horca demanded it of him; or whether he paid the money to escape a possible long term of imprisonment; or whether to avoid molestation at the hands of the defendant Horca; or whether he did so to escape criminal prosecution; or whether he was induced to pay the same or voluntarily offered to pay the money in order to be free from restraint and the results which would possibly follow a criminal prosecution, does not clearly appear from the record.
This court finds, however, that a prisoner was set at liberty by a public official who in the exercise of his police powers had ordered his arrest for the commission of a crime, and that the prisoner was thus set at liberty in consideration of money paid by him.
This is simply a case of a public official being corrupted by bribery; it is a case of bribery.
This is not a case wherein violence was used by a kidnaper who demands the payment of money in exchange for the liberty of the person kidnaped; this is not a case of a highway robber who demands money from the person he accosts under threats of violence.
Horca did not deceive Rile. He did what he promised to do for the money which he was paid to him. He did not obtain the money from him through deceit; he did what he had promised to do. He promised to set Rile at liberty for a certain sum, upon the receipt of which he liberated him.
He gave him his liberty instead of turning him over to the justice of the peace for trial. And this is bribery, as was held by this court in the case of the united Statesvs.Pablo Valdehueza,1No. 2118.
We therefore find that the defendant Eustaquio Horca is guilty of the crime of bribery, an offense not included in the crime charged in the complaint. The case is accordingly dismissed, and it is ordered that a new complaint charging the crime of bribery be filed, with the costs of this actionde oficio. So ordered.
Torres, Mapa, Johnson and Willard, JJ.,concur.
Separate Opinions
CARSON,J.,dissenting:
I dissent. I am of opinion that the judgment appealed from should be affirmed.
Footnotes
1Phil. Rep., 470.