People v. v. Cruz
G.R. No. L-146 L-146
1 of 2
Republic of the Philippines SUPREME COURT
Manila EN BANC G.R. No. L-146
May 7, 1946
THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee,
vs. ANGEL CRUZ Y ENCARNACION, defendant-appellant.
Santiago F. Alidio for appellant. First Assistant Assistant Solicitor General Reyes and Acting Solicitor Avanceña Avanceña for appellee. FERIA, J. FERIA, J.::
This is an appeal from the ud!ment of the Court of "irst #nstance of Manila convictin! the accused An!el Cru$ % Encarnacion Encarna cion of the crime of attem attempted pted &ualified &ualified theft and sente sentencin! ncin! him to suff suffer er t'ent% ()*+ da%s of arresto menor , 'ith the accessories of the la' and to pa% the costs. The first 'itness for the prosecution, !t. Robert C. Cooper, presented durin! the trial in the Court of "irst #nstance, testified that at about ) ocloc/ noon on Ma% ), 012, !t. Tom Reill% apprehended Pablo 3isan in an attempt to brin! out of the 40*0th i!nal 5epot (6. . A.+ at ta. Mesa, Manila, 7 cases containin! 8 stora!e batteries, 'hich 'ere loaded in a truc/ driven b% the latter9 that 3isan implicated Rafael Advincula, a chec/er, 'ho in turn implicated the accused An!el Cru$ as the person 'ho made the arran!ements 'ith the other t'o to brin! out the batteries9 that actin! on this information, er!eant Cooper 'ent to the house of the accused and arrested him9 and that in the course of the subse&uent investi!ation conducted b% said Cooper, the accused si!ned the follo'in! confession (E:hibit A+; #, An!el Cru$, civilian 'ho lives at 7)4 <. Tuason treet do confess to !t. Robert C. Cooper, Provost Marshal, to havin! ta/en from the ta. Mesa i!nal 5epot, four (1+ cases of batteries BB-22, each case contained t'o ()+ stora!e batteries. These batteries 'ere ta/en from the 5epot about the 2th of Ma% and sold. # also confess to havin! attempted ta/in! ei!ht (7+ cases of batteries BB-22, from the ta. Mesa i!nal 5epot, on the afternoon of ) Ma% 12 at about )** hours. The testimon% of the other t'o 'itnesses for the prosecution, =usto Camat and >rmond 5. Abbot, 'ere limited to the effect that the accused understood the confession and voluntaril% si!ned the same. The accused, testif%in! in his o'n behalf, denied havin! had an% connection 'ith either Pablo 3isan or Rafael Advincula, and claimed that he si!ned the confession (E:hibit A+, because he 'as forced to do so b% er!eant Cooper, 'ho bo:ed him in the stomach and threatened him 'ith a pistol, and that he 'as alone in a room 'ith the ser!eant 'hen the latter forced him to si!n said confession. #n the rebuttal, Cooper denied havin! used an% force or intimidation a!ainst the accused. The !uilt of the appellant has not been proven be%ond reasonable doubt. The appealed decision relies mainl% on the appellants alle!ed e:tra-udicial confession (E:hibit A+. Assumin! that said confession 'as not obtained b% force and intimidation, as alle!ed b% the appellant, it is insufficient to sustain the appellants conviction because it 'as not corroborated b% evidence of corpus delicti. delicti. (ection 08, Rule )4, Rules of Court.+ The onl% 'itness 'ho testified about the corpus delicti 'as delicti 'as er!eant Cooper, and his testimon% is mere hearsa%.
People v. Cruz
G.R. No. L-146
2 of 2
As/ed 'hether he 'as the officer ?'ho sa' some laborers stealin! batteries,? he ans'ered; ?No, !t. Tom Reill%. @e is in To/%o in no'.? And as/ed 'hether the 'itness 'as the one ?'ho arrested those persons 'ho stole the batteries,? the 'itness ans'ered; ?es, he turned them over to me.? @is testimon% about the information !iven to him b% 3isan and Advincula, 'ho 'ere not presented as 'itnesses, re!ardin! the participation of the appellant in the commission of the offense char!ed, is also hearsa%. @is testimon% on both points havin! been obected to, cannot be considered as evidence of corpus delicti a!ainst the appellant. #n vie' of the fore!oin!, 'e find that the recommendation made b% the olicitor
# certif% that =ustice =aranilla voted in conformit% 'ith this decision.
