G.R. No. L-3497 - SEPTEMBER 1907 - PHILIPPINE JURISPRUDENCE CASE NUMBERCASE TITLE G.R. No. L-3497September 30, 1907 United States vs. L. V. Smith, et al. G.R. No. L-3584September 30, 1907 Artadi & Co. vs. Chu Baco G.R. No. L-3727September 30, 1907 United States vs. Florendo Gadila, et al. G.R. No. L-1516September 28, 1907 United States vs. Dominador Gomez G.R. No. L-2264September 28, 1907 P. Jose Evangelista vs. P. Roman Ver G.R. No. L-3629September 28, 1907 Matea E. Rodriguez vs. Susana de La Cruz, et al. G.R. No. L-3684September 28, 1907 United States vs. Emilio Neri G.R. No. L-3767September 28, 1907 United States vs. Florentino Leyba, et al. G.R. No. L-3439September 27, 1907 United States vs. Juan Montaner G.R. No. L-3207September 26, 1907 United States vs. Catalino Garcia G.R. No. L-3373September 26, 1907 Vicenta Jalbuena vs. Gabriel Ledesma, et al. G.R. No. L-3535September 26, 1907 Rafael Enriquez, et al. vs. Francisco Enriquez, et al. G.R. No. L-3645September 26, 1907 United States vs. Emeterio Dacanay G.R. No. L-3728September 25, 1907 United States vs. Anastasio Maisa G.R. No. L-3369September 24, 1907 Jonas Brook Bros. vs. Froelich & Kuttner G.R. No. L-3597September 24, 1907 Manuel Mesia vs. Placido Mazo, et al. G.R. No. L-3615September 24, 1907 United States vs. Brigido Casin G.R. No. L-3669September 24, 1907 United States vs. Domingo Baltazar G.R. No. L-4138September 24, 1907 Sy Hong Eng vs. Sy Lioc Suy G.R. No. L-3527September 23, 1907 Tan Tioco vs. Marcelina Lopez G.R. No. L-3575September 23, 1907 United States vs. Tranquilino Almaden, et al. G.R. No. L-3672September 23, 1907 United States vs. Estanislao Eusebio G.R. No. L-3675September 23, 1907 United States vs. Gregorio Amante, et al. G.R. No. L-3726September 23, 1907 United States vs. Fernando Monzones, et al. G.R. No. L-3474September 20, 1907 Rafael Enriquez, et al. vs. Francisco Enriquez, et al. G.R. No. L-4244September 20, 1907 Rafael S. Molina vs. Antonio de La Riva, et al. G.R. No. L-3434September 18, 1907 Sagasag vs. Victoria Torrijos G.R. No. L-3067September 17, 1907 Rubert, et al. vs. Luengo, et al. G.R. No. L-3395September 16, 1907 Pedro Arenal, et al. vs. Charles F. Barnes G.R. No. L-3132September 14, 1907 Manuel M. Soler, et al. vs. Emilia Alzoua, et al. G.R. No. L-3146September 14, 1907 Nicolas Co-Pitco vs. Pedro Yulo G.R. No. L-3534September 14, 1907 To Guioc-Co vs. Lorenzo del Rosario G.R. No. L-3383September 13, 1907 Tan Leonco vs. Go Inqui G.R. No. L-3546September 13, 1907 Pia del Rosario vs. Juan Lucena, et al. G.R. No. L-3708September 12, 1907 Elvira Fressell vs. Marciana Agustin G.R. No. L-3221September 11, 1907 Atlantic,Gulf & Pacific Company vs. United States G.R. No. L-2526September 10, 1907 Pedro Pamintuan, et al. vs. P. Insular Government, et al. G.R. No. L-3616September 10, 1907 Cirilo Puruganan vs. Teodoro Martin, et al. G.R. No. L-3301September 10, 1907 United States vs. Emigdio Nobleza G.R. No. L-3326September 7, 1907 United States vs. Laurente Rey G.R. No. L-3482September 7, 1907 United States vs. Bartolome Gray G.R. No. L-3489September 7, 1907 Vicente Navales vs. Eulogia Rias, et al. G.R. No. L-3648September 5, 1907 Natalia Fabian, et al. vs. Collector of Customs G.R. No. L-3667September 5, 1907 Lutz & Co. vs. Smith, Bell & Co. G.R. No. L-2538September 4, 1907 Mariano Pamintuan, et al. vs. Insular Government G.R. No. L-3220September 2, 1907 Murphy, Morris & Co. vs. United States G.R. No. L-3396September 2, 1907 Struckmann & Co. vs. United States The Lawphil Project - Arellano Law Foundation, Inc. United States vs. L. V. Smith, et al. Artadi & Co. vs. Chu Baco United States vs. Florendo Gadila, et al. United States vs. Dominador Gomez P. Jose Evangelista vs. P. Roman Ver Matea E. Rodriguez vs. Susana de La Cruz, et al. United States vs. Emilio Neri United States vs. Florentino Leyba, et al. United States vs. Juan Montaner United States vs. Catalino Garcia Vicenta Jalbuena vs. Gabriel Ledesma, et al. Rafael Enriquez, et al. vs. Francisco Enriquez, et al. United States vs. Emeterio Dacanay United States vs. Anastasio Maisa Jonas Brook Bros. vs. Froelich & Kuttner Manuel Mesia vs. Placido Mazo, et al. United States vs. Brigido Casin United States vs. Domingo Baltazar Sy Hong Eng vs. Sy Lioc Suy Tan Tioco vs. Marcelina Lopez United States vs. Tranquilino Almaden, et al. United States vs. Estanislao Eusebio United States vs. Gregorio Amante, et al. United States vs. Fernando Monzones, et al. Rafael Enriquez, et al. vs. Francisco Enriquez, et al. Rafael S. Molina vs. Antonio de La Riva, et al. Sagasag vs. Victoria Torrijos Rubert, et al. vs. Luengo, et al. Pedro Arenal, et al. vs. Charles F. Barnes Manuel M. Soler, et al. vs. Emilia Alzoua, et al. Nicolas Co-Pitco vs. Pedro Yulo To Guioc-Co vs. Lorenzo del Rosario Tan Leonco vs. Go Inqui Pia del Rosario vs. Juan Lucena, et al. Elvira Fressell vs. Marciana Agustin Atlantic,Gulf & Pacific Company vs. United States Pedro Pamintuan, et al. vs. P. Insular Government, et al. Cirilo Puruganan vs. Teodoro Martin, et al. United States vs. Emigdio Nobleza United States vs. Laurente Rey United States vs. Bartolome Gray Vicente Navales vs. Eulogia Rias, et al. Natalia Fabian, et al. vs. Collector of Customs Lutz & Co. vs. Smith, Bell & Co. Mariano Pamintuan, et al. vs. Insular Government Murphy, Morris & Co. vs. United States Struckmann & Co. vs. United States The Lawphil Project - Arellano Law Foundation, Inc.
Republic of the Philippines
SUPREME COURT
Manila
EN BANC
G.R. No. L-3497 September 30, 1907
THE UNITED STATES,plaintiff-appellee,
vs.
L. V. SMITH AND MATEO BACANI,defendants-appellants.
A. V. Herrero, for appellants.
Attorney-General Araneta, for appellee.
JOHNSON,J.:
These defendants were charged with the crime of robbery. The evidence shows that on the night of the 14th of October, 1905, these defendants, one of whom was armed with a revolver, with criminal intent were to the house of Domingo Ocampo, situated in the barrio of Pio, municipality of Porac, Province of Pampanga, and ordered the said Ocampo, by means of threats and intimidation, to come out of his house, when the defendant immediately manacled him; that they also compelled one Severo Mañgila, who was then and there in the house of the said Ocampo, to come out of the house also, whereupon Mateo Bacani entered the house, while the said Smith guarded the said Ocampo and Mañgila, and by means of threats and intimidation compelled the women who were in the house to turn over to him the sum of P8, being all the money which the said women had in their possession.
At the conclusion of the trial in the lower court the judge thereof sentenced each of the said defendants to be imprisoned for a period of eight years ofpresidio mayor, to suffer the accessory penalties of article 57 of the Penal Code, to indemnify, jointly and severally, the offended persons in the sum of P8, to pay the costs and to deliver the said revolver and ammunition found upon the defendants to the chief of Constabulary of the said province.
From this sentence the defendants appealed to this court and the cause was received here upon the 3d day of August, 1906.
On the 2d day of November, 1906, the said defendant Mateo Bacani presented a request in this court, asking that his appeal be dismissed, which request was granted upon the 3d day of November of the same year.
On the 23d day of November, 1906, the defendant Smith filed an affidavit in this court made by the said Mateo Bacani, in which the said Bacani swears that he, Smith took no part in the said robbery, but that his companions was another American known as Thomas. Upon this affidavit, the defendant Smith asked for a new trial.
During the trial of said cause in the court below the said Bacani appeared as a witnesses and denied any partition whatever in the commission of the crime. If he, Bacani, did actually participate in the commission of the crime, as the withdrawal of his appeal would seem to indicate, then certainly the facts which he alleges in his said affidavit are not facts discovered after the trial is the court below, and therefore the facts stated in the affidavit do to furnish a sufficient basis for the granting of a new trial; therefore the said motion for a new trial is denied.
A careful examination of the evidence brought to this court shows beyond peradventure of doubt that the defendant Smith was guilty of the crime charged in said complaint. The record also discloses that the crime was committed in the nightmare and at the dwelling house of the offended parties. These facts should be considered as aggravation circumstances and the defendant, therefore, should be punished in the maximum degree of the penalty ofpresidio correccionaltopresidio mayorin its medium degree, in accordance with paragraph 5 of article 503 of the Penal Code.
It is therefore the judgment if this court that the sentence of the lower court be modified and that the defendant Smith be sentenced to be imprisoned for a period of ten years ofpresidio mayor; to suffer the accessory penalties of article 57 of the Penal Code; to indemnify the persons offended in the sum of P8, and to pay one-half the costs. With this modifications, the sentence of the lower court is hereby affirmed. It is so ordered.
Arellano, C.J., Torres, Willard, and Tracey, JJ.,concur.