G.R. No. 31916 - DECEMBER 1929 - PHILIPPINE JURISPRUDENCE CASE NUMBERCASE TITLE G.R. No. 31916December 28, 1929 People of the Philippines vs. Santiago Suñga G.R. No. 31905December 28, 1929 Chua Quip vs. Insular Collector of Customs G.R. No. 31454December 28, 1929 Estate of Francisco Arquiza Isidra Gaas, et al. vs. Pilar Fortich G.R. No. 31346December 28, 1929 Po Sun Tun vs. W. S. Price, et al. G.R. No. 30823December 28, 1929 Angelo Angeles, et al. vs. Anatalia Lozada, et al. G.R. No. 31316December 27, 1929 Lim Chu Lan vs. Lim Chu Kun G.R. No. 31763December 27, 1929 People of the Philippines vs. H. Janssen G.R. No. 31768December 27, 1929 People of the Philippines vs. Nicolas Payumo y Pasion G.R. No. 31508December 27, 1929 San Juan de Dios Hospital vs. Metropolitan Water District G.R. No. 31338December 27, 1929 Cecilia Ortiz, et al. vs. Alejandro Balgos G.R. No. 31287December 27, 1929 In Re: R. H. Frankel Anna Hartske, et al. vs. Fred Frankel & Philippine Trust Co. G.R. No. 31155December 27, 1929 Hijos de I. de La Rama vs. Salvador Betia, et al. G.R. No. 30048December 27, 1929 Lo Bun Chay vs. Albino Paulino, et al. G.R. No. 28243December 27, 1929 People of the Philippines vs. Sawajan, et al. G.R. No. 30874December 26, 1929 Government of the Philippine Islands vs. Esteban del Rosario, et al. G.R. No. 30641December 18, 1929 Government of the Philippine Islands vs. J. O Wagner, et al. G.R. No. 31953December 16, 1929 Teh Huan vs. Insular Collector of Customs G.R. No. 31686December 14, 1929 Jao Yan vs. Insular Collector of Customs G.R. No. 31770December 5, 1929 People of the Philippines vs. Antonino Hernandez G.R. No. 30587December 4, 1929 Sabina Reyes, et al. vs. E. C. Wells G.R. No. 31883December 3, 1929 People of the Philippines vs. Demetrio Castro G.R. No. 31320December 3, 1929 People of the Philippines vs. Crispo Lara E Ilano G.R. No. 31088December 3, 1929 Miguel J. Ossorio vs. Juan Posadas, JR. G.R. No. 29959December 3, 1929 Aurelia Dadivas de Villanueva vs. Rafael Villanueva G.R. No. 31397December 2, 1929 People of the Philippines vs. Lim Quingsy G.R. No. 30993December 2, 1929 People of the Philippines vs. Pio Vivas, et al. The Lawphil Project - Arellano Law Foundation, Inc. People of the Philippines vs. Santiago Suñga Chua Quip vs. Insular Collector of Customs Estate of Francisco Arquiza Isidra Gaas, et al. vs. Pilar Fortich Po Sun Tun vs. W. S. Price, et al. Angelo Angeles, et al. vs. Anatalia Lozada, et al. Lim Chu Lan vs. Lim Chu Kun People of the Philippines vs. H. Janssen People of the Philippines vs. Nicolas Payumo y Pasion San Juan de Dios Hospital vs. Metropolitan Water District Cecilia Ortiz, et al. vs. Alejandro Balgos In Re: R. H. Frankel Anna Hartske, et al. vs. Fred Frankel & Philippine Trust Co. Hijos de I. de La Rama vs. Salvador Betia, et al. Lo Bun Chay vs. Albino Paulino, et al. People of the Philippines vs. Sawajan, et al. Government of the Philippine Islands vs. Esteban del Rosario, et al. Government of the Philippine Islands vs. J. O Wagner, et al. Teh Huan vs. Insular Collector of Customs Jao Yan vs. Insular Collector of Customs People of the Philippines vs. Antonino Hernandez Sabina Reyes, et al. vs. E. C. Wells People of the Philippines vs. Demetrio Castro People of the Philippines vs. Crispo Lara E Ilano Miguel J. Ossorio vs. Juan Posadas, JR. Aurelia Dadivas de Villanueva vs. Rafael Villanueva People of the Philippines vs. Lim Quingsy People of the Philippines vs. Pio Vivas, et al. The Lawphil Project - Arellano Law Foundation, Inc.
Republic of the Philippines
SUPREME COURT
Manila
EN BANC
G.R. No. 31916 December 28, 1929
THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS,plaintiff-appellee,
vs.
SANTIAGO SUÑGA (aliasPedro Quiambao, Santiago Santos, Emilio Reyes),defendant-appellant.
Macario M. Peralta for appellant.
Attorney-General Jaranilla for appellee.
ROMUALDEZ,J.:
Information was filed forestafaof P100, with habitual criminality, in that the defendant had been previously convicted of sixteen similar crimes and once of qualified theft.
Charge and convicted in the municipal court of Manila, the accused appealed to the Court of First Instance which, after trial, found him guilty and sentenced him to four months and one day ofarresto mayorunder article 534 of the Penal Code, amended by section 2 of Act No. 3244, to indemnify Domingo Vital in the sum of P100 and costs, plus Twenty-one year's imprisonment for habitual criminality under subsection (d) of section 1, Act No. 3397.
The defendant again appeals and counsel now makes the following assignments of error:
1. The trial court erred in finding and concluding that the accursed-appellant is an habitual delinquent and in imposing upon the accused-appellant the additional penalty provided for in Act No. 3397 of the Philippine Legislature.
2. The trial court erred in not holding that there is no evidence to prove beyond reasonable doubt that said accused-appellant is an habitual delinquent.
We believe, taking into consideration all the facts of the case, that the act committed by the defendant constitutes the crime ofestafaas alleged in the information. It appears of record that the defendant only tried in vain to look for money after having used the automobile; therefore he knew that he had no funds with which to pay for the trip when he contracted for it, and he succeeded in making the offended party believe that he paid his debts punctually, because he had done so a few days previous. These facts indicate the fraud and deceit which constitute the elements ofestafa. Furthermore, the defendant's guilt of the crime ofestafais not discussed in this instance.
What counsel contends is that the evidence of the defendant's habitual criminality is insufficient, inasmuch as the documents marked B and from D to M, were not admitted in evidence by the trial court. It appears, however, that Exhibits N, O and P were also offered in evidence and were admitted, since the trial court, in rejecting Exhibits B, D to M stated that the rest could be admitted (page 15, parol evidence), and Exhibits N, O and P, which were admitted, consist, according to their presentation (pages 14 and 15, parol evidence), in the following:
FISCAL. I present also as part of the evidence for the prosecution, the decision rendered in criminal cases of this court: No. 21497, marking it Exhibit N; as Exhibit O, the decision rendered in criminal cases Nos. 24617, 24618, 24619, 24620, 24621, 24622, 24623, 24624 and 24625, all for the crime ofestafa; as Exhibit P, the decision entered in criminal case No. 30803 of this court, reserving the right to substitute later for these, Exhibits N, O and P, which are certified copies thereof.
Taking these documents into account, the trial court held in the decision appealed from that the defendant "has been convicted of and sentenced for the crime ofestafaeleven times, having begun to serve the sentence of four years' imprisonment on August 3, 1925." Notwithstanding the fact the neither the original nor the certified copies of Exhibits N, O and P have been forwarded to this court, there is sufficient evidence of record to accept the conclusions of the trial court in regard to the appellant's habitual criminality.lawphi1.net
Accepting the Attorney-General's correct recommendation that the judgment appealed from be modified so that the indemnity of the amount of theestafabe given to Felipe Vital instead of to Domingo vital, and that the accessory penalties be added to thearresto mayor, said judgment is hereby affirmed, with costs against the appellant. So ordered.
Avanceña, C.J., Johnson, Street, Malcolm, Villamor, Ostrand, Johns and Villa-Real, JJ., concur.