Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence

Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1907 > August 1907 Decisions > G.R. No. L-3586 August 7, 1907 - UNITED STATES v. HIGINO VELASQUEZ

008 Phil 321:



[G.R. No. L-3586. August 7, 1907. ]

THE UNITED STATES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. HIGINO VELASQUEZ, Defendant-Appellant.

R. Fernandez, for Appellant.

Attorney-General Araneta, for Appellee.


ILLEGAL DETENTION. — The fact that an individual was taken from his house and deprived of liberty, and that he was unable to free himself from his captors until after three days, constitutes the crime of illegal detention punished by paragraph 1 of article 481 of the Penal Code. Paragraph 3 of said article is not applicable because the guilty parties did not spontaneously set their prisoner at liberty within the aforesaid period of time.



On the 5th of December, 1905, a complaint was filed with the Court of First Instance of Nueva Ecija, reading as

"The undersigned accuses Higino Velasquez of the crime of illegal detention committed as

"That on the night of the 9th of October, 1905, the said accused, in company of three unknown individuals armed with bolos and one of them carrying a revolver, willfully and feloniously sequestrated Lucas San Mateo, a youth 14 years of age, taking him from his father’s house where he lived, in the barrio of Santo Niño, municipality of Aliaga, Province of Nueva Ecija, and conducting him to a forest which was unknown to said youth although it was situate within the limits of Aliaga, in which place he was held and deprived of liberty during three days."cralaw virtua1aw library

Proceedings having been instituted by reason of the foregoing complaint, the judge, in view of the facts in the case, rendered judgment on the 1st day of August, 1906, and sentenced the accused to imprisonment for ten years and one day (prision mayor), to the accessories of article 61, and to pay the costs. From this judgment the accused has appealed.

The unlawful detention of young Lucas San Mateo, carried out on the night of the 9th of October, 1905, by four armed individuals, one of whom was the accused, Higino Velasquez, is a fact which has been duly proven. The said youth managed to escape from the hands of his captors on the night of the third day (Wednesday), and on the following morning he reported to the justice of the peace of Aliaga, Province of Nueva Ecija.

The following facts have also been proven:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

That on the night in question the accused and his mistress, Isabel San Mateo, sister to the sequestered youth, accompanied by three other individuals, made their appearance in the neighborhood of his house situated in the barrio of Santo Niño, in the said town of Aliaga, and while the accused and his mistress entered the house the three unknown individuals, armed with bolos, proceeded to and entered the adjoining house owned by Hospicio Dajose, who at the time was talking his supper, compelled the latter to get up, and at once started to eat in his place. That as soon as they were through they left said house and went to that where the accused, Velasquez, was, and asked known persons ordered young Lucas San Mateo to come down; that as the latter, with tears in his eyes, refused to do so, he was, under threats, compelled to obey them and was taken to a forest, where he was kept and watched by the accused and the three unknown persons; that he was compelled to watch, from the top of a tree, for the appearance or approach of any force of police; that on the night of the third day, taking advantage of the fact that the accused and his three companions were asleep, he managed to escape, and on the day following he reported to the municipal authorities of Aliaga. The complaining witness further stated that the accused, Velasquez, carried a bolo. This last statement was confirmed by Hospicio Dajose, who testified to having recognized the accused in company with the three unknown persons, and that they all sequestrated young Lucas San Mateo, notwithstanding his objection and tears. Deponent further states that the accused had been working for him.

The act described above constitutes the crime of illegal detention, provided for and punished by article 481, paragraph 1, of the Penal Code, for the reason that the complaining witness was taken from his house at nighttime, detained and deprived of liberty until he was able to make his escape, taking advantage of the opportunity when his captors were asleep, and thereupon reported the matter to the authorities.

Defendant did not plead guilty, and notwithstanding his exculpatory allegations and the testimony of his mistress, though she is a sister to the plaintiff, and the testimony of the other two witnesses called to corroborate them, his culpability as the author of the crime, assisted by other unknown parties, can not be doubted, since no proof appears in the cause in support of his plea that both he and his mistress had also been detained two hours previously by the same unknown persons on that same night.

The fact that at that time the accused carried a bolo; that he had and his mistress on arriving near the house of the latter’s father, where the complaining witness lived, while the three unknown individuals in whose company they were, entered the adjoining house, which belonged to Hospicio Dajose, and there partook of supper; the fact that his two witnesses were not present at the sequestration alleged by him, having affirmed it merely as hearsay; and the fact that the testimony given by the mistress of the accused, Isabel San Mateo, is markedly partial and favorable to him — all these facts, far from destroying the evidence offered by the prosecution, serve to confirm the commission of the crime. Nor can it be presumed that one of the witnesses testified falsely, because there is no reasonable grounds to believe that he has so testified against his sister’s lover, out of enmity and spite, and merely for the purpose of injuring him by falsely accusing him.

In the commission of the crime the attendant aggravating circumstance of nocturnity and the fact that the complaining witness was forcibly taken from his home should be considered, as well as that of repeated offense, since it has been proven that the culprit has been previously sentenced to imprisonment for one year and ten months (prision correccional) and a fine, for a similar crime, which sentence he had already served. No mitigating circumstance is present whereby the effects of the three aggravating circumstances stated above might be counteracted, for which reason the penalty imposed by paragraph 1 of article 481 of the Penal Code, in its maximum degree, should be applied.

For the foregoing reasons in our opinion the judgment of the court below should be affirmed, and we do hereby affirm it with the costs of this instance. So ordered.

Arellano, C.J., Johnson, Willard, and Tracey, JJ., concur.

Back to Home | Back to Main

ChanRobles On-Line Bar Review

ChanRobles Internet Bar Review :

ChanRobles MCLE On-line

ChanRobles Lawnet Inc. - ChanRobles MCLE On-line :

August-1907 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. L-3640 August 1, 1907 - CHARLES S. ROBINSON v. CHARLES F. GARRY

    008 Phil 275

  • G.R. No. L-4011 August 1, 1907 - MAMERTA BANAL v. JOSE SAFONT, ET AL.

    008 Phil 276

  • G.R. No. L-3574 August 2, 1907 - UNITED STATES v. NICOMEDES DE DIOS

    008 Phil 279

  • G.R. No. L-3965 August 2, 1907 - ENRIQUE F. SOMES, ET AL. v. A.S. CROSSFIELD, ET AL.

    008 Phil 283

  • G.R. No. L-3422 August 3, 1907 - UNITED STATES v. MANUEL SAMONTE

    008 Phil 286

  • G.R. No. L-3576 August 3, 1907 - FLORENCIO TERNATE v. MARIA ANIVERSARIO

    008 Phil 292

  • G.R. No. L-3841 August 3, 1907 - CHUNG KIAT v. LIM KIO, ET AL.

    008 Phil 297

  • G.R. No. L-2730 August 7, 1907 - UNITED STATES v. BASILIO MORALES, ET AL.

    008 Phil 300

  • G.R. No. L-2837 August 7, 1907 - CALDER & CO. v. UNITED STATES

    008 Phil 303

  • G.R. No. L-2838 August 7, 1907 - MACONDRAY & CO. v. UNITED STATES

    008 Phil 305

  • G.R. No. L-3419 August 7, 1907 - UNITED STATES v. DOMINGO POLINTAN

    008 Phil 309

  • G.R. No. L-3517 August 7, 1907 - UNITED STATES v. JOSE MAGNO, ET AL.

    008 Phil 314

  • G.R. No. L-3586 August 7, 1907 - UNITED STATES v. HIGINO VELASQUEZ

    008 Phil 321

  • G.R. No. L-3608 August 7, 1907 - UNITED STATES v. ESTANISLAO FLOIRENDO

    008 Phil 325

  • G.R. No. L-3842 August 7, 1907 - VICTORINO RON, ET AL. v. FELIX MOJICA

    008 Phil 328


    008 Phil 332

  • G.R. No. L-2836 August 8, 1907 - CALDER & CO. v. UNITED STATES

    008 Phil 334

  • G.R. No. L-2840 August 8, 1907 - KUENZLE & STREIFF v. UNITED STATES

    008 Phil 339

  • G.R. No. L-4002 August 8, 1907 - LO PO v. H.B. McCOY

    008 Phil 343

  • G.R. No. L-3507 August 9, 1907 - ISABELO AGUIRRE v. OCCIDENTAL NEGROS, ET AL.

    008 Phil 350

  • G.R. No. L-2841 August 10, 1907 - RUBERT & GUAMIS v. UNITED STATES

    008 Phil 352

  • G.R. No. L-3488 August 10, 1907 - C.S. ROBINSON, ET AL. v. THE SHIP "ALTA", ET AL.

    008 Phil 355

  • G.R. No. L-3456 August 14, 1907 - JOSEPH N. WOLFSON v. ELIAS REYES, ET AL.

    008 Phil 364

  • G.R. No. L-3529 August 14, 1907 - ESTEBAN GUILLERMO v. RAMON MATIENZO, ET AL.

    008 Phil 368

  • G.R. No. L-2839 August 15, 1907 - CALDER & CO. v. UNITED STATES

    008 Phil 373

  • G.R. No. L-3562 August 15, 1907 - GUTIERREZ HERMANOS v. ANTONIO VALLEJO

    008 Phil 377

  • G.R. No. L-3363 August 17, 1907 - UNITED STATES v. JOAQUIN CELIS

    008 Phil 378

  • G.R. No. L-3554 August 17, 1907 - JULIANA BENEMERITO v. FERNANDO VELASCO

    008 Phil 381

  • G.R. No. L-3572 August 17, 1907 - S.G. LARSON v. H. BRODEK

    008 Phil 383

  • G.R. No. L-3627 August 17, 1907 - UNITED STATES v. JOAQUIN CELIS

    008 Phil 385

  • G.R. No. L-3664 August 17, 1907 - UNITED STATES v. LEONA CINCO, ET AL.

    008 Phil 388

  • G.R. No. L-3200 August 19, 1907 - UNITED STATES v. TOMAS COLOMBRO

    008 Phil 391

  • G.R. No. L-3625 August 19, 1907 - UNITED STATES v. JOAQUIN CELIS

    008 Phil 394

  • G.R. No. L-3432 August 20, 1907 - UNITED STATES v. ESTANISLAO GASINGAN

    008 Phil 397


    008 Phil 399

  • G.R. No. L-3626 August 21, 1907 - UNITED STATES v. JOAQUIN CELIS

    008 Phil 408

  • G.R. No. L-3460 August 22, 1907 - UNITED STATES v. LEON NARVASA, ET AL.

    008 Phil 410

  • G.R. No. L-3557 August 22, 1907 - VICTORIANO GARCIA, ET AL. v. REMIGIO DIAMSON

    008 Phil 414

  • G.R. No. L-3173 August 23, 1907 - UNITED STATES v. MODESTO GARCIA

    008 Phil 416

  • G.R. No. L-3568 August 23, 1907 - ROMAN ESPAÑA v. LEONARDO LUCIDO

    008 Phil 419

  • G.R. No. L-3510 August 24, 1907 - HENRY O’CONNELL v. NARCISO MAYUGA

    008 Phil 422

  • G.R. No. L-3573 August 24, 1907 - HENRY BRODEK v. S.G. LARSON

    008 Phil 425


    008 Phil 427

  • G.R. No. L-3622 August 26, 1907 - H.W. PEABODY & CO., ET AL. v. PACIFIC EXPORT & LUMBER CO.

    008 Phil 429

  • G.R. No. L-3734 August 26, 1907 - JAMES J. PETERSON v. RAFAEL AZADA

    008 Phil 432


    008 Phil 438

  • G.R. No. L-3192 August 29, 1907 - LUISA ALVAREZ v. SHERIFF OF ILOILO, ET AL.

    008 Phil 441

  • G.R. No. L-3458 August 29, 1907 - UNITED STATES v. FIDEL GONZALEZ

    008 Phil 442

  • G.R. No. L-3526 August 29, 1907 - UNITED STATES v. SEVERINO MACAVINTA

    008 Phil 447

  • G.R. No. L-3636 August 29, 1907 - FREDERICK GARFIELD WAITE v. JAMES J. PETERSON, ET AL.

    008 Phil 449

  • G.R. No. L-3547 August 30, 1907 - LORENZA PAEZ v. JOSE BERENGUER

    008 Phil 454

  • G.R. No. L-3628 August 30, 1907 - MANUEL COUTO SORIANO v. BLAS CORTES

    008 Phil 459

  • G.R. No. L-3416 August 31, 1907 - UNITED STATES v. PILAR JAVIER, ET AL.

    008 Phil 462

  • G.R. No. L-3561 August 31, 1907 - RITA GARCIA, ET AL. v. SIMEON BALANAO, ET AL.

    008 Phil 465

  • G.R. No. L-3630 August 31, 1907 - JOS. N. WOLFSON v. CAYETANO CHINCHILLA

    008 Phil 467

  • G.R. No. L-3637 August 31, 1907 - PEDRO P. ROXAS, ET AL. v. ANASTASIO CUEVAS, ET AL.

    008 Phil 469