|
FIRST
DIVISION
THE UNITED STATES,
Complainant-Appellee,
G.
R.
No. 310
July
30,
1902
-versus-
JACINTO ASIAO, ET
AL.,
Defendants-Appellants.
D E C I S I
O N
TORRES, J :
Late on the night of the
28th or early in the morning of the 29th of December, 1897, a wooden
trunk,
containing clothing and jewelry to the value of 9 pesos and 7 reales,
and
the sum of 56 pesos and 50 cents in silver, and 5 reales in fractional
coin, were taken from the house of Dolores del Rosario, situated in the
town of Milaor of the Province of Camarines Sur. In order to enter the
house the thief or thieves had entered by the street door, which they
succeeded
in opening by thrusting a hand through the nipa wall and then drawing
the
wooden bolt. By chance the woman Dolores woke up, and, missing the
trunk
from her room, immediately opened the window toward the street and then
saw two men who were running away with the trunk. She recognized one of
them as Jacinto Asiao, and as he lived with Atanasio Copendit, she
immediately
concluded that these two were the men who had stolen her trunk, which
was
subsequently found some distance away, with the top broken in and the
money
missing, the clothing and jewelry, however, having been recovered. The
damage done the trunk is estimated at 50 cents.
These facts, proven
by competent testimony, constitute the crime of robbery without arms,
in
an inhabited house, of goods and money of which the total value does
not
exceed 1,250 pesetas, and the breaking of a locked trunk, outside of
the
place from where it was taken - a crime defined and punished by Article
502 and the last paragraph of Article 508 of the Penal Code.
Notwithstanding this,
however, the record does not sufficiently demonstrate the guilt of the
two accused, inasmuch as the unsupported allegation of the complaining
witness that she recognized Jacinto Asiao on the night of the robbery
as
one of the men she saw from the window of her house running away with
the
trunk, is not sufficient to satisfactorily establish the responsibility
of Jacinto Asiao, nor is the testimony of a servant of the complaining
witness who identified Atanasio Copendit in the ring of prisoners as
the
other of the two thieves. This same witness testified elsewhere that
owing
to the darkness of the night of the occurrence he could not recognize
the
man whom he challenged when running after the two thieves. Therefore,
there
being no other evidence for the prosecution in the record to support
the
accusation of the complaining witness in view of the contradictory
statements
made by the witness referred to, the defendants are entitled to an
acquittal.
They must be presumed to be innocent until their guilt is proven by
satisfactory
testimony, and even in case there is a reasonable doubt as to their
innocence
they are entitled to an acquittal. Therefore, in accordance with
Section
57 of General Orders No. 58, the judgment of the court below must be
reversed
and the defendants acquitted with the costs of both instances de
oficio.
The Order declaratory
of insolvency is approved, and the Judge is directed to act in
accordance
with law with respect to the property of Copendit, which was attached.
So ordered.
Arellano, C.J.,
Cooper, Willard and Ladd, JJ., concur.
Mapa, J., did
not sit in this case. |
