Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1947 > August 1947 Decisions > G.R. No. L-930 August 29, 1947 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. VIVENCIO VICTORIA ET AL.

079 Phil 119:




PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

FIRST DIVISION

[G.R. No. L-930. August 29, 1947.]

THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. VIVENCIO VICTORIA ET AL., Defendants. PONCIANO DE LA CRUZ, Appellant.

Dayrit & Del Rosario for Appellant.

First Assistant Solicitor General Jose B. L. Reyes and Solicitor Luis B. Angeles for Appellee.

SYLLABUS


CRIMINAL LAW; ROBBERY WITH HOMICIDE; EVIDENCE PRESUMPTION OF GUILT ARISING FROM SILENCE. —Failure to speak in the face of an accusation of complicity by an accomplice raises the presumption of acquiescence in the accusation.


D E C I S I O N


TUASON, J.:


According to the evidence for the prosecution several persons armed with pistols and carbines broke into the home of Hermenegildo Maneja on Enconado Street in Quezon City, on April 28, 1946, at about 9 o’clock in the evening. The occupants of the house were told, at the points of guns, to lie flat on the floor face down, and they obeyed, except Hermenegildo Maneja who remained standing. Some of the bandits searched wardrobes and pockets for money and valuables while others stood guard at or outside the door. When Hermenegildo Maneja saw the bandits were bent on taking all the money he and his housemates had against his entreaties, he told other men of the household to get up and fight. Gregorio Maneja and Severino Flores, Hermenegildo’s brother and brother-in-law, rose on their feet and with Hermenegildo started to rush on the gangsters. Taken aback and disconcerted the thugs fled and were pursued by the two brothers as far as the foot of the stairway. But after reaching the other side of the fence the malefactors fired into the house killing Telesforo Agulay, 19 years of age, who was inside. They succeeded in carrying away P140 in cash, a wrist watch and a pair of slippers.

Seven young men were later charged with robbery in band in an inhabited house with homicide, but only four were brought to trial — Vivencio Victoria, Ponciano de la Cruz, Jesus Beltran and Leonardo Simbulan. The rest, though included in the information, had not been arrested. The first four-named defendants were found guilty as co-principals in the crime, and Vivencio Victoria, Jesus Beltran and Leonardo Simbulan, whose ages range from 15 to 17 years, were ordered committed to the reformatory school at Welfareville, while Ponciano de la Cruz, 24 years old, was sentenced to reclusion perpetua with the accessories of law. All four were ordered jointly and severally to pay the heirs of the deceased an indemnity of P2,000 and to pay the other offended parties the amounts in cash and the value of the goods stolen. Only Ponciano de la Cruz has appealed.

There is no doubt in our minds as to the identity of the appellant, which is the main point at issue. There was a bright electric light (60 kilowatts) burning in the house before and during the perpetration of the robbery. The appellant and his co-defendants lived in the neighborhood of the place of the crime and had been known since 1937 by Hermenegildo Maneja, one of two direct witnesses for the prosecution. Hermenegildo Maneja added that he came face to face with the robbers and talked with them. With particular reference to Ponciano de la Cruz, he stated that this accused was one of two men who opened one of the wardrobes and got money from it. Gregorio Maneja, on his part, gave positive assurance that De la Cruz was armed with a .45 caliber pistol and entered his room.

More, in the presence of the appellant at the police headquarters, two of his co-accused pointed to him as one of their confederates. It does not appear that he protested at the time against that incrimination, and there is no indication that the statements were obtained by the police through improper means. El que calla otorga. And again, in his own statement to the police, the appellant, after denying he knew anything about the robbery, said he heard the shooting and that Victoria came to see him in his house on the night in question carrying a gun and told him of the raid.

Ponciano de la Cruz made a half-hearted attempt to put up an alibi. His testimony in chief is terse and consists of two short questions and answers. His answer to the first question was, "I was at home." To the second he replied he knew nothing of the robbery. There was no corroboration except his co-defendants’ denials that he was with them on the night of the crime. But no weight can be attached to these denials. They are in conflict with two of the other defendants’ spontaneous declarations made shortly after their arrest, and have the appearance of being part of a last-minute endeavor to save from a stiff sentence, if not from the electric chair, one who seemed to be the leader or one of the leaders of the gang and who, being an adult, was not entitled to the benefits of a suspended judgment.

Defense counsel characterize certain testimony of the offended parties as "manifest improbability." We do not think so. The Maneja brothers were not given an opportunity to explain why Hermenegildo did not lie down like the rest of the household and why the two and Flores, unarmed, dared defy and offer resistance to gunmen. Hermenegildo and Gregorio were not even cross-examined. Nor do we find inherent weakness in the evidence that the culprits were undisguised. People, especially young people, do foolish things. The youth and lack of experience and foresight of the defendants might well have accounted for their neglect to take appropriate precaution against being recognized. To the same factors and clumsiness of the accused may well be attributed the refusal for long of Hermenegildo to be awed and cowered by the gangsters.

The conviction of the appellant is affirmed in all respects with costs of the appeal.

Moran, C.J., Paras, Feria, Pablo, Perfecto, Hilado, Bengzon, Briones and Padilla, JJ., concur.




Back to Home | Back to Main




















chanrobles.com





ChanRobles On-Line Bar Review

ChanRobles Internet Bar Review : www.chanroblesbar.com

ChanRobles MCLE On-line

ChanRobles Lawnet Inc. - ChanRobles MCLE On-line : www.chanroblesmcleonline.com






August-1947 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. L-1091 August 1, 1947 - DOMINGO CRUZ, ET AL. v. EULALIO GARCIA

    079 Phil 1

  • G.R. No. L-1371 August 5, 1947 - AUGUSTO ONGSIAKO v. FELIPE NATIVIDAD

    079 Phil 3

  • G.R. No. 49286 August 16, 1947 - EUSEBIO QUIZON ET AL. v. MODESTO CASTILLO

    079 Phil 9

  • G.R. No. L-745 August 27, 1947 - JOSE L. MOYA contra JOHN BARTON

    079 Phil 14

  • G.R. No. L-1010 August 27, 1947 - YSABEL B. VDA. DE PADILLA ET AL. v. RAFAEL DINGLASAN

    079 Phil 31

  • G.R. No. L-1246 August 27, 1947 - ANGELINA CANAYNAY ET AL. v. FELICIANO SARMIENTO

    079 Phil 37

  • G.R. No. L-1280 August 27, 1947 - SANTOS CONTRERAS contra RAFAEL DINGLASAN

    079 Phil 43

  • G.R. No. L-1387 August 27, 1947 - MENA LAMA v. CONSOLACION N. VDA. DE APACIBLE

    079 Phil 68

  • G.R. No. L-208 August 29, 1947 - INES CONSOLACION CUYUGAN v. JOSE P. DIZON

    079 Phil 80

  • G.R. No. L-597 August 29, 1947 - PURA KALAW LEDESMA ET AL. v. EMILIO PICTAIN

    079 Phil 95

  • G.R. No. L-930 August 29, 1947 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. VIVENCIO VICTORIA ET AL.

    079 Phil 119

  • G.R. No. L-1266 August 29, 1947 - CO CHIONG v. RAFAEL DINGLASAN ET AL.

    079 Phil 122

  • G.R. No. L-1334 August 29, 1947 - MARTA ESPINOSA ET AL. v. QUERUBE C. MAKALINTAL ET AL.

    079 Phil 134

  • G.R. No. L-924 August 30, 1947 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. TIBURCIO ALITAGTAG

    079 Phil 138

  • G.R. No. L-1251 August 30, 1947 - MARIA CASUPANAN v. VALERIANO FUGOSO

    079 Phil 148

  • G.R. No. L-1397 August 30, 1947 - SEVERINA EBERO v. ANTONIO CAÑIZARES

    079 Phil 152

  • G.R. No. L-1418 August 30, 1947 - PROV. FISCAL OF NUEVA ECIJA v. COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE OF NUEVA ECIJA

    079 Phil 165