Sergio del Rosario, Petitioner, vs. People of the Phil., Respondent, G.R. No. L-16806, December 22, 1961

Title

Language

English

Source

The Lawyers Journal XXVII (9) September 30, 1962

Year

1962

Subject

Criminal law

Revised Penal Code

Court of First Instance -- Davao

Treasury bills and notes

Rights

In Copyright - Educational Use Permitted

Abstract

[Accused of counterfeiting Philippine treasury notes, Sergio del Rosario, Alfonso Araneta and Benedicto del Pilar were convicted by the Court of First Instance of Davao of illegal possession of said forged treasury notes and sentenced to an indeterminate penalty ranging from 8 years and 1 day to 10 years and 1 day of prison mayor, and to pay a fine of P5,000, without subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency, as well as a proportionate part of the costs. On appeal, the judgment was affirmed by the Court of Appeals, except insofar as the maximum of said indeterminate penalty which was increased to 10 years, 8 months and 1 day of prison mayor. The case is before on appeal by certiorari taken by Sergio del Rosario.]

Fulltext

the extra-judicial confession was signed and sworn to. But h~ did not. Judge Angeles stated in cou1t that he himself read to Jasmilona the contents of the affidavit (extra-judicial confession) and has asked the latter whether or not, he was willing to sign the same and to swear to the truth of its contents. J nsmilona said yes, and willingly. Moreover, he also stated that when such extra-judicial confession was about to be read to the accused, for signature and oath, he (J udge Angeles) ordered the soldiers accompanying the prisoner to leave the room. Considering therefore the circumstances under which this extra-judicial confession was executed, we arc not inclined to dis· a~ree with the lower court on its finding that it was voluntarily made. The next question is whether or not said extra-judicial conf ession may serve as the basis for the conviction of appl!llant• Jasmilona, Villanueva and Perea!. It is urged that granting the confcssicn was admissil,>lc, appellant IJasmilona must be absolved because said affidavit contains exculpatory statements exonerating him from guilt. On this point, we say that courts need not believe the confession in its entirety. As to t-he other accused, it was alleg-:-dly error for 1he low<'r court to use the extra-judicial confession of Jasmilona against them. On this issue, the rule is that where the recitals in the cxtrajudicial confession of one of the conspirators are corroborated in its important details by other prooofs in the record, it m.'.ly be considered as part of the evidence against the parties concerned. In the case of U. S. vs. Reyes, et al. (I) we opined: "The truth of the incriminating statements of Miguela Sibug, Damaso Valencia's widow, in connection with each of the said three defendant, is proved by those made by the other witnesses for the prosecution, Lorenzo R0 yes, and by the confession, although extra--judicW.l, made by Faustino Mafiago himself in the municipality of Hagonoy to the lieutenant of the Constabulary, Cristobal Cerquella, and to the municipal president and a policeman of the said pueblo; and this confession is worthy of credence and is admissible against him, as it is likewise credible and admissible against his codefendants, Abdon de Leon and Severino Perez, his accu;:ation of their participation in the crime, ina!:'much as th(' confession is corroborated both by the testimony of Miguela Sibug herself and by that of Lorenzo Reyes and confirmed by other evidence related thereto and found in the record." This brings us to the query: Are the recitals in the extrajudicial confession and the other proofs sufficient to support cenviction? We arc satisfied that the trial judge made painstaking efforts to evaluate the, evidence of record. The circumstances it found to have indicated the guilt of the accused, are indeed substantiated. We do not need to recount them now. At this juncture, it may be added that we think the trial judge exercised sound judgment when it considered Jasmilona's confession against the other two defendants as an exception to the general rul" against its admission, for the following rc.'.lsons: "While a confession is against him but not against his codefendants to whom said confession is hearsay cvidenc(', t he rule, however, admits of certain exceptions. One of them is when a defendant, who made the confession, is called to testify as a witness for his co-defendants, his confession then becomes competent evidence for the purpose of contradicting his testimony in behalf of his co-defendants (People vs. Manalo, 46 Phil. 573). This was what happened in this case because Emiterio Villanueva and Pedro Perea! adopted as part of their defense not only the testimony of Felix Jasmilona (t) 32 Phil. 163, 173. but also the statement given by him before the Justice of the Peace of Calamba on March 10, 1956." 1t is urged that some of the prosecution witnesses were biased, because Enrique Fatiga was a dismissed it'nant of Emitel"io Villanueva, and Benito Mendoza was related by marriage to the deceased, (Mendoza's wife being his niece). Howevel", upon examining the testimony of such witnesses, this Court finds no compelling reason for disbelief. There is no tinge at all of exaggeration or improbability in their testimonies. Besides, th~ defen~e itself has shown that the differences between Fatiga and Villanueva had been settled amicably sometime in Or.tober, 1950, many years before this fatal incident, On the other hand, the defendants' alibi carrie3 no weight. Aside from the fact that it is not corroborated by others, it is definitely without sufficient strength in the fact of the assertit'm of witnesses who saw them at or nea:t· the scen1: of the crime en Dec. 27, 1955, Appellants ascribe error to the lower court in concluding that there was conspiracy among them. In support of their ussertion, they claim that accused Percal and J asmilona had no motive in kilting the deceased, Loreto Estacio; that it was only Emiterio Villanueva, who had been charged by the deceased in the J ustice of the Peace Court of · Calamba in the criminal complaint. who could have reason to kill. Although it is true that there is no direet proof of conspiracy among the accused, their acts, in the light of the recitals in the extra-judicial confession show that the killing of Loreto was planned among them and carr ied out accordingly. This confession, as stated, is supported and corroborated by competent evidence, The chain of circumstances, fitting well into the statements in the extra-judicial confession, is more than sufficient to establish conspiracy, as found by the trial court. Wherefore, the judgment of conviction must be upheld, and the sentence affirmed. The imprisonment however should be 1·eclusion perpetua, instead of caden.a perpetua. Costs against appellants, who shall be credited with one-half of the period of ' their preventive imprisonment, in accordance with Art. 29 of the Revised Penal Code. So ordered. Padilla, Baut'i.eta Angelo, Concepcion, Bwn·era, Paredes, Dizon, Regala. and Makalintal, JJ., concurred. x Sergio del Rosario, Petitioner, vs. People of the Phil., Respondent, C.R. No. L-16806, December 22, 1961, Concepcion, J. CRIMINAL LAW; USING FORGED PHILIPPINE TREASURY NOTES.-The possession of genuine treasury notes of the Philippines wherein any of "the figures, letters, word3 or signs contained" in which had been erased and/ or altered, with knowledge of such erasure and alteration, and with the intent to use such notes, as they were used by the accused and his codefendants, is punishable under Article 168, in relation to Article 169, subdivision (1), of {he Revised Penal Code (U.S. vs Gardner, 3 Phil., 398; U.S. Solito, 36 Phil., 785). P. lit. Stnart del Rosario, for petit:oncr. The Solicitor General, for respondent. D EC I S IO N Accused of counterfeiting Philippine treasury notes, Sergio de! Rosario, Alfonso Araneta and Benedicto Ci.el Pilar were convicted by the Court of First Instance of Davao of illegal posses· sion of said forged treasury notes and sentenced to an indeterminate penalty ranging from 8 years and 1 day to 10 yr:ars and 1 day of prision :mayor, and to pay a fine of P5,000, without subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency, as well as a proportionate part of the costs. On appeal, the judgment was affirmed (Continued on page 287') September 30, 1962 LAWYERS JOURNAL Page 279 Hl62 BA R (Continued front w1ge 286) yer X objected, first, to the validity of the inquiry as a whole, there being no specific complaint against him and, scc011d, to the above ques~ions on the gt·ound of his r ight not to incriminate himself. Ruic on his objections with reaTV. (a) According to Rule 127, what conduct on the part of an attorney may be punished as contempt? (b) In the long, protracted hearing of the majO:' Communi:'.;t lea<lers before J udge Medina, counsel for t he accused persisted in making Ieng, repetitious, and unsubstantial arguments, objections, and protests; repeatedly make charges of bias and prejudice; a nd persisted in asking quei;tions on matters already ruled c.s exduded. \Vould such conduct constitute contempt'? Reason out your answer. V. (a) What is the extC!nt of an attonrny's aut.hority to bind his clients according to the Rules )f Court? (b) It appears that having been adjudicated n 1i2 m1dividcd share in a farm land, plaintiffs were able to ootail1 a writ of execution on a specific portion of the lot which they themselves had selected. The execution admittedly departed materially and radically from the te11or of the judgment, but the plaintiffs asserted that the counsel for defendants gave his assent . \Vas such an assent binding on his clients? Reason out your anVI. (a) On what grnunds may a member of the Bat· be remO\'C d or suspended by the Supreme Court? (b) It was shown that Attorney X was prosecuted and convicted in three criminal cases for having solicited, charged and received as fees, amounts in excess of the limit fixed by Republic Act No. 145 for the preparation, presentation and prosecution 'Jf benefit claims by thref' war veterans. Thereafter, disbarmer:t proceedings were SUPRE.l!E COURT (Conti1111ecl from page 279) by the Court of Appeals, except insofar as the maximum of said indeterminate penalty which was increased to 10 years, 8 month::i and I clay of prision mayo1·. The case is before us on appeal by certiorari taken by Sergio del Rosario, It appears that, after showing to complainant Apolinado del Rosario the Philippine one-peso bills Exhibits C, E and G and the P hilippine two-peso bill Exhibit H, and inducing him to believe that the same were counterfeit paper money m:mufactured by them, although in fact they were genuine treasury notes of the Philippine Government one of the digits of each of which had been al!f"red and changed, the aforementioned defendants had succeeded in obtaining Pl,700.00 from said complainant, in the City of Davao, on June 23, 1955 for the avowed purpose of financing the manufacture of more counterfeit treasury notes of the Philip pine!!. The only question raiSed in this appeal is whether the possession of said Exhibits C, E, and H constitutes a violation of Article 168 of the Revised Pena! Code. Appellant maintains that, being genuine tl'easury notes of our g-0vernment, the possession thereof cannot be illegal. We find no merit in this pretense, 1t is not disputed that a pvrtion of the last digit 9 of Serial No. F -796926Hl of Exhibit C, had been ernsed and o :hanged so as to read 0 and that similar erasures an<l changes h11d been made fo the penultimate digit 9 in Serial No. F-79692691 of Exhibit G, .and in the last digit !) of Serial No. D-716329 of Exhibit H. A rt ides 168 and 169 of the Revised Penal Code read: ART. 168. Illegal possession a1ul use of false trea81try brmk 1 wtes and other i1i.stl"u.msnts of cl'edit. - Unl1~ss the a<'t be one of those coming under the provisions of any of the precei]ing a1·ticles, any person who shall knowing-ly use or have in possession, with intent to use any of the false or falsific<l inst-ruments referred to in this section, shall suffer the penalty next lower in degree than that prescribed in said articles. instituted against him. Should he be disbarred? Why? VIL (a ) Jn a disbarment proceeding, it was shown that respondent, a member of the Bar, was pi·eviously convicted of murder and with his co-de:fendants was sentenced to life imprisonment, which decision was t hereafter affi!'mcd on review by the Supreme Court. After serving part of the sentence, respondent was granted a conditional pardon, the unexecuted portion t hereof being remitted. At about the same time, the widow of the deceased filed a · verified complaint before the Supreme Court praying that he be disbarred. Respondent pleaded the conditional pardon and sought the dismissal of the disbarment Pl'Oceeding. How would you rule? Explain. (b) Prepare a chattel mortgage, VIII. In outline form, prepare a complaint or petition: (a) Contesting the validity of a legislative Act. (b) Contesting the validity of an executive orcler. (c) Contesting the validity of a municipal ordinance. IX. Prepare habeas corp11s petitions : (a) Seeking the custody of a minor. (b) Seeking the release of a person detained without formal charges having been filed against him. (c) Seeking reli~f from a judgment or order of a cou1t of record. X. (a) Prepare a petition fol' certiornri as a special civil action. (b) In outline forn1, prepare a petition for ccrtiontri to the Sup!'eme Court appealing from a judgment of the Court of Appeals. (c) You represent a F ilipino industrialist desirous or establishing a factory near Manila. He was able to loc3te such a site with the owner willing to part with such property at practically give away prices as long as he is paid in cash. Draw up a contract Ol' deed, as tht- case may be, to enable your client to obtain t he site. " ART. 169. How forgery is committed.- The forgery Tc- , fered to in this section may be committed by any of the following means : 1. By giving to a treasury or bank note or nry instrument payable to bearer or to order mentioned therein, the appearance of a true and genuine document. 2. By erasing, substituting, counterfeiting or altering J;y any means the figures, letters, words or signs contai1•ed therein." It is clear from this provision that the possession r.f genuine treasury notes of the Philippines wherein any of ''the figures, letters, words or signs contained" in which had been erased and/or altered, with knowledge of such erasure and alteration, and with '!"he intent t-0 use such notes, as they were used by petitioner hert>in and his codefendants in the manner adverted to above, is puni!>hable under said Article 168, in relation to Article 160, subdivision ( 1) , of the Revised Penal Code (U.S. vs. Gardner, 3 Phil., 398: U.S. vs, Solito, 36 Phil., 785). Being in accordance with the facts and the !aw, the decision appealed from is, accordingly, affirmed, with costs against petitioner Sergio <lei Rosario. IT IS SO ORDERED. Bengzon, C.J., Padilla, Bautista Angelo, Labrador, J.B.L. Reyes, Barrera and De Leon, JJ., concurred . Pa1·edes, J. took no part. OMISSION In the case of Caraballo vs. Republic, G. R. No. L-15080, April 25, 1962 published on. page 213 of t hf: July 31, Hl62 issue of the Lawyers Journal, on line 28 between the words ''and" an<l "his" th& following words were inad\·ertently omitted: "b.i;; wife ~raciela G. C:ir~ b~Uo live, al le~s that he and''. September 30, 1962 LA WYERS JOURNAL Page 287

pages

279, 287

Media