G.R. No. L-4687 - OCTOBER 1908 - PHILIPPINE JURISPRUDENCE CASE NUMBERCASE TITLE G.R. No. L-4687October 31, 1908 United States vs. Criaco Manlimos G.R. No. L-4812October 30, 1908 United States vs. Romualdo Mena G.R. No. L-4543October 29, 1908 Miguel Samson vs. Paulino Dionisio, et al. G.R. No. L-4539October 28, 1908 United States vs. Nicolas Arceo G.R. No. L-4441October 28, 1908 United States vs. Eusebio Bello G.R. No. L-5691October 27, 1908 Regoleta Altman vs. Commanding Officer of te Philippine Squadron of the United States Navy G.R. No. L-4833October 27, 1908 Rafael Linsangan vs. Simeon Linsangan G.R. No. L-4525October 27, 1908 Feliciana Batug vs. Ambrosio del Rosario G.R. No. L-4571October 24, 1908 Irineo de Guzman vs. Pascual Balarag G.R. No. L-4406October 23, 1908 Antonia O. Valencia vs. Juan M. Jimenez G.R. No. L-4801October 22, 1908 United States vs. Martin Gaboya G.R. No. L-4793October 22, 1908 United States vs. Lim Suco G.R. No. L-4532October 22, 1908 B. H. Macke, et al. vs. Jose Rubert G.R. No. L-4342October 22, 1908 United States vs. Mercades Alabanza G.R. No. L-4781October 21, 1908 United States vs. Baltasar Sarmiento G.R. No. L-4772October 21, 1908 David Frank vs. Geo N. Wolfe G.R. No. L-3356October 21, 1908 Roman Catholic Apostolic Church, et al. vs. Municipality of Langaran, et al. G.R. No. L-4608October 16, 1908 Murphy, Morris & Company vs. Colector of Customs G.R. No. L-4480October 16, 1908 Ker & Company vs. Anastasia dela Rama G.R. No. L-4736October 15, 1908 Jeremiah J. Harty vs. Francisco Sandin, et al. G.R. No. L-4432October 15, 1908 United States vs. Agripino Macasaet G.R. No. L-4483October 14, 1908 Ignacio San Jose, et al. vs. Pedro Ortega, et al. G.R. No. L-4590October 12, 1908 Mariano Limjap vs. Tomasa Vera Moguer G.R. No. L-4541October 12, 1908 N. T. Hashim & Company vs. Estate of John Kernan G.R. No. L-4778October 9, 1908 United States vs. Antonio Espinosa G.R. No. L-4561October 9, 1908 United States vs. Fortunato Meñez G.R. No. L-4527October 9, 1908 United States vs. Clemente Roque G.R. No. L-4309October 9, 1908 David Cleto vs. Juliana Salvador, et al. G.R. No. L-4267October 9, 1908 United States vs. Gaudencio Cabuncal G.R. No. L-4033October 8, 1908 Miguel Boga Tan Chiao Boc, et al. vs. Gregorio Sajo Vecina G.R. No. L-3354October 8, 1908 Roman Catholic Apostolic Church, et al. vs. Municipality of Cebu, et al. G.R. No. L-4463October 6, 1908 Luis R. Yangco vs. Arsenio Cruz Herrera, et al. G.R. No. L-4066October 6, 1908 Alipia Dumlao vs. Candido Pobre II G.R. No. L-3551October 6, 1908 Victor Sanchez vs. Cirilo Pascual G.R. No. L-4187October 5, 1908 Vicenta Limjuco vs. Mauricia Ganara G.R. No. L-4893October 1, 1908 Pasay Estate Company, Ltd. vs. Simplicio del Rosario, et al. G.R. No. L-4453October 1, 1908 In re: Flora Martinez Jose Bello G.R. No. L-4452October 1, 1908 Juana Pichay vs. Eulalio Querol, et al. G.R. No. L-4316October 1, 1908 Froelich & Kuttner vs. Collector of Customs G.R. No. L-2527October 1, 1908 Lucas V. Carrillo vs. Insular Government, et al. G.R. No. L-2525October 1, 1908 Modesto Paras vs. Insular Government, et al. The Lawphil Project - Arellano Law Foundation, Inc. United States vs. Criaco Manlimos United States vs. Romualdo Mena Miguel Samson vs. Paulino Dionisio, et al. United States vs. Nicolas Arceo United States vs. Eusebio Bello Regoleta Altman vs. Commanding Officer of te Philippine Squadron of the United States Navy Rafael Linsangan vs. Simeon Linsangan Feliciana Batug vs. Ambrosio del Rosario Irineo de Guzman vs. Pascual Balarag Antonia O. Valencia vs. Juan M. Jimenez United States vs. Martin Gaboya United States vs. Lim Suco B. H. Macke, et al. vs. Jose Rubert United States vs. Mercades Alabanza United States vs. Baltasar Sarmiento David Frank vs. Geo N. Wolfe Roman Catholic Apostolic Church, et al. vs. Municipality of Langaran, et al. Murphy, Morris & Company vs. Colector of Customs Ker & Company vs. Anastasia dela Rama Jeremiah J. Harty vs. Francisco Sandin, et al. United States vs. Agripino Macasaet Ignacio San Jose, et al. vs. Pedro Ortega, et al. Mariano Limjap vs. Tomasa Vera Moguer N. T. Hashim & Company vs. Estate of John Kernan United States vs. Antonio Espinosa United States vs. Fortunato Meñez United States vs. Clemente Roque David Cleto vs. Juliana Salvador, et al. United States vs. Gaudencio Cabuncal Miguel Boga Tan Chiao Boc, et al. vs. Gregorio Sajo Vecina Roman Catholic Apostolic Church, et al. vs. Municipality of Cebu, et al. Luis R. Yangco vs. Arsenio Cruz Herrera, et al. Alipia Dumlao vs. Candido Pobre II Victor Sanchez vs. Cirilo Pascual Vicenta Limjuco vs. Mauricia Ganara Pasay Estate Company, Ltd. vs. Simplicio del Rosario, et al. In re: Flora Martinez Jose Bello Juana Pichay vs. Eulalio Querol, et al. Froelich & Kuttner vs. Collector of Customs Lucas V. Carrillo vs. Insular Government, et al. Modesto Paras vs. Insular Government, et al. The Lawphil Project - Arellano Law Foundation, Inc.
Republic of the Philippines
SUPREME COURT
Manila
EN BANC
G.R. No. L-4687 October 31, 1908
THE UNITED STATES,plaintiff-appellee,
vs.
CIRIACO MANLIMOS,defendant-appellant.
Pastor M. Navarro for appellant.
Office of the Solicitor-General Harvey for appellee.
TRACEY,J.:
In the Court of First Instance of Leyte the accused was convicted ofestafaand sentenced to one year and six months ofprision correccional, to restore P100, with subsidiary imprisonment, suspension from public office, and the costs.
He was president of the municipality of Liloan, which was the owner of the 24 beams of molave wood destined to its use. The accused was building a church in the municipality, and the theory of the prosecution is that he took these 24 beams from a pile of 29, used them in building the church, and replaced them with other beams, older and of less value. On then other hand, it is claimed by the defense that there were 30 beams belonging to the municipality, of which 8 were taken and were actually being sawed up to be used in the schoolhouse, the other 22 remaining in the public place; the beams used by the builder of the church having been taken from another pile.
At the last preceding municipal election, at which the accused was elected president, his opponent was one Jorge Kapili, who afterwards became the complainant in this prosecution, although he did not take the stand on the trial. We can not accept as the full equivalent of proof on oath the agreement of counsel that, if certain additional witnesses were produced and sworn on behalf of the prosecution as well as of the defense, they would testify as the actual witnesses had done as to the very substance of the issue. (U.S.vs.Donato, 9 Phil. Rep., 701) t is not supposed to be within the knowledge or competence of counsel to predict what a proposed witness shall say when under the sanction of his oath and the test of cross-examination. A conviction of crime should not rest upon such mere conjecture. Nor is it possible for a trial court to weigh with exact nicety the contradictory declarations of witnesses not produced so as to be subjected to its observation and its judgment as to their credibility. This class of testimony was unfavorably commented upon in United Statesvs.Pobre,1decide in August 1,1908. In the case of the United States vs. Castañeda (reported in memorandum, 10 Phil. Rep., 761), effect was given to a stipulation that uncalled witnesses for the defense would testify in certain manner to the extent of holding, "we do not think, under the circumstances, that a new trial should be granted for this irregularity in the procedure," on the ground that in that instance the agreement was entirely for the benefit of the defendant, his witnesses thereby escaping cross-examination. Therefore the error was one of which he had no reason to complain. In the present case the story of each side is sustained by two witnesses only, in addition to which we have the testimony of the accused himself. The two versions of fact appear rather evenly balanced and we should find it difficult under the circumstances to say that the proof overcame the presumption of innocence of the accused, were it necessary to finally pass upon that question.lawphil.net
In any event, it is clear that the offense, if one was committed, did not constituteestafa, inasmuch as the beams were not shown to have been in the especial custody of the accused or that, by reason of his office, he was charged of any duty with respect of them. If he took them, he did so as any other individual might have taken them. and his crime does not come within the complaint laid against him. For this reason the complaint against him must be dismissed, and he is hereby absolved, with the costs of both instances de oficio. So ordered.
Arellano, C.J., Torres and Mapa, JJ., concur.
Carson and Willard, JJ., concur in result.
Footnotes
1Page 51,supra.