United States v. Filomeno Bacarrisas
Supreme Court
Republic of the Philippines
SUPREME COURT
Manila
EN BANC
G.R. No. L-2944 October 29, 1906
THE UNITED STATES,plaintiff-appellee,
vs.
FILOMENO BACARRISAS,defendant-appellant.
M. Abejuela, for appellant.
Office of the Solicitor-General Araneta, for appellee.
CARSON,J.:
Under the provisions of Act No. 440 of the Philippine Commission, the trial judge in this case appointed a friend of the accused as counsel for the defense (defensor), there being no practicing attorney in the municipality where the trial was had. It appears that there were at least two practicing attorneys in the province at that time and under these circumstances it is contended that the act relied upon does not authorize the appointment of any person, not a member of the bar, as counsel for the defense in criminal case. In support of this contention our attention is directed to the authorized Spanish version of an act of the Philippine Commission, published by the Bureau of Printing in 1904, which provides as follows:lawphil.net
Que en las provincias en donde no hay abogados en ejercicio el tribunal podra admitir o nombrar, cuando lo juzgue precedente, una persona de reconocida honradez, buena reputacion y habilidad para que defienda al procesado, aun cuando la persona referida no sea abogado en ejercicio —
Which, being literally translated, is follows:
That in the provinces whereinthere are no practicing lawyersthe court may, in its discretion, admit or assign some person resident in the province of good repute, probity, and ability to act as counsel for the defendant, although the person so admitted or assigned be not a duly authorized member of the bar.
The Spanish version is clearly misleading, as the original provides —
That in provinceswhere duly authorized members of the bar are not availablethe court may, in its discretion, good repute, of probity and ability to act as counsel for the defendant, although the person so assigned be not a duly authorized member of the bar —
And Act No. 63 of the Philippine Commission provides that —
In the construction of all acts which have been or shall be enacted by the United States Philippine Commission, the English text shall govern, except that in obvious cases of ambiguity, omission, or mistake the Spanish text may be consulted to explain the English text.
(The italics are inserted to direct attention to the exact point where the translation varies from the original.)
The evidence of record sustains the finding of the trial court and we find no error in the proceedings prejudicial to the rights of the accused. The judgment of the trial court is affirmed with costs of the instance against the appellant.
After the expiration of ten days from the date hereof let the case be remanded to the court below for proper action. So ordered.
Arellano, C.J., Torres, Mapa, Willard and Tracey, JJ., concur.
Related decisions
Decisions on similar questions that neither cites the other: they rely on the same precedents, are cited together, or apply the same law.
- L-8984 March 13 v. Labial1914both apply Act 440
- People v. For1922both apply Act 440
- People v. Agbayani1998both apply Act 440
- L-7852 December 17 v. Casimiro1955both apply Act 440
- L-10288 April 15 v. Pelayo1955both apply Act 440
- Jose v. Housing and Land Use Regulatory…2019both apply Act 440
- Pilar Development Corporation v. Dumadag2013both apply Act 440
- China Banking Corporation v. Benjamin2008both apply Act 440
Laws it applies
Links and connections are read from the text by pattern matching, not checked by a person. A guide, not a finding.