EN BANC
THE UNITED STATES,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
G.
R.
No. 1298
May
1,
1906
-versus-
JUAN
SINGUIMUTO,
Defendant-Appellant.
D E C I S I
O N
CARSON, J:
The Information filed in
this case is as follows:
"In the Court of
First
Instance of the Province of Batangas. Seventh Judicial District. March
7, 1903. The undersigned accuses Juan Singuimuto of the crime of
estafa,
as follows:
"First. That the
said
Juan Singuimuto, in the town of Batangas, Province of Batangas,
received
300 sacks of rice from Lieutenant William H. Bell, commissary of the
United
States military post, who was responsible for the distribution,
purchase,
and sale of government rice in the said Province of Batangas, using for
this purpose two orders (vales) issued in favor of the accused by the
said
Lieutenant William H. Bell, to wit: One for 100 sacks of rice, valued
at
525 pesos, Mexican currency, being at the rate of 5.25 pesos, Mexican
currency,
per sack — this on or about the 16th day of July, 1902; and the other
for
200 sacks valued at 1,050 pesos, Mexican currency, being at the rate of
5.25 pesos, Mexican currency, for each sack — this on or about the 13th
day of October, 1902.
"Second. That the
accused
received the said 300 sacks of rice on commission to sell them, and to
pay the amount received, when sold, to Lieutenant William H. Bell,
through
the municipal president, Sr. Jose Villanueva.
"Third. That the
accused
not only has failed to deliver the amount received from said sales, but
he has denied receiving the said 100 and 200 sacks of rice.
"Fourth. That these
acts were committed contrary to law."
There is no evidence in
the case upon which to base a finding that the rice in question was in
fact delivered to the accused, unless full faith and credit be given
the
testimony of the witness Isabelo Javier, who stated that he received
the
said order from Lieutenant Bell and delivered the same to the accused,
and that the accused, through his agents, received said rice from the
government
warehouseman in pursuance of said order.
This witness, when
first called, stated that as a friend of the accused he had acted as
interpreter
in the transactions had with the officer in charge of the distribution
of the Government rice at Batangas, and that except on the 14th and
15th
of October the accused never bought or dealt in Government rice, and
that
on those occasions he paid cash for all rice received.
Upon being recalled
for the prosecution, he swore that this evidence was false, and that
the
truth was that the officer had given him the orders mentioned in the
information
for delivery to the accused, that he had delivered said orders, and
that
the accused had received the rice mentioned in the said information
from
the Government warehouseman at or about the date of the execution of
said
orders. He also gave the names of a number of drivers of carabao carts,
on which he alleged the rice in question had been hauled away by the
accused,
but all of these persons who were called as witnesses positively denied
having hauled the rice in question and contradicted the statements of
the
witness upon this point.
We do not think that
the uncorroborated evidence of this witness is sufficient to overcome
the
presumption of innocence in favor of the accused, and we are of opinion
that there exists a reasonable doubt as to the alleged delivery of the
rice in question.
The sentence appealed
from is reversed, and the accused acquitted of the charge against him,
with the costs de oficio in both instances.
Arellano, C.J.,
Mapa and Willard, JJ., concur.
Separate
Opinions
TORRES, J.,Dissenting:
From the new evidence taken
in the new trial had in this case, it appears that Juan Villano affirms
to have seen ten of the various witnesses examined in this case, and
whose
names he gives, occupied in transporting rice in carts at about 10
o'clock
in the morning of a day the date of which he could not remember, but it
was about two years ago, and that they were unloading the rice in the
storehouse
belonging to the defendant who, together with Vito Alindungan, received
and piled the rice inside of the storehouse. Another witness affirms
[p.
185] what the witnesses preceding him testified to, adding that the
rice
waste carried to the store of the defendant in July and October, 1902,
in the morning, and that it came from the storehouse of the government,
situated on the shore, and that several of the witnesses examined, cart
drivers, and whose names he does not state, were transporting the rice
in carts. That the one who received and took the sacks of rice was a
son-in-law
of the defendant, "Goyo" or "Gregorio," assisted by Isabelo Javier, and
as the witness was in the employ of the defendant, he was ordered to
arrange
the stacking of the sacks of rice received.
Taking into
consideration
u hat these two witnesses testified, and also taking into consideration
the statements made by Isabelo Javier, supporting the testimony of the
majority of the witnesses examined who were cart drivers, and finally
what
the witnesses Petronilo Marcial and Pelagio Quino stated regarding the
disappearance of a certain quantity of rice which was in charge of
Lieutenant
Bell, and finally taking the result of the case altogether,
corroborating
the charges, and also what the witnesses Fortunato Fernandez and Felix
Javier declare, I reassert here my former opinion rendered on the
decision
of the case No. 1298, dated January 14, 1904,
[1]
and of which this forms a part.
JOHNSON, J., Dissenting:
I think
the evidence
disclosed
by the record shows that the defendant is guilty of the crime charged
and
that the sentence below should be affirmed.
___________________________
Endnote:
[1]
3 Phil. Rep., 176.
|