People of the Philippines, Plaintiff-Appellee vs. Maximo Pacheco, alias Emong, alias Guemo, Defendant-Appellant, G. R. No. L-4570, July 31, 1953 [Supreme Court Decisions]

Media

Part of The Lawyers Journal

Title
People of the Philippines, Plaintiff-Appellee vs. Maximo Pacheco, alias Emong, alias Guemo, Defendant-Appellant, G. R. No. L-4570, July 31, 1953 [Supreme Court Decisions]
Language
English
Source
The Lawyers Journal XIX (5) May 31, 1954
Year
1954
Subject
Criminal Law
Treason
Court of First Instance--Bulacan
Rights
In Copyright - Educational Use Permitted
Abstract
[This article refers to the case of Maximo Pacheco who was accused for treason in the Court of First Instance of Bulacan. Two acts performed were identified: in Polo Bulacan and in the City of Manila.]
Fulltext
"improvements" a.re not "land." Upon examination of the .whole Land Registration' Act we are satisfied that "land" as used i11. section 99 includes buildings. For Pne thing the same section uses "real estate" as synon71J1ous with land. And buildings are "real estate" <See. 334, Civil Code, Art. 416, New Civil Code, Republics de Filipinas v. Ceniza, L-4169, Dec. l'i', ·1951) .2 For a.nother, altl1ough .entitled "l141UI Registl'a.tion," the Act <496) pennits the registration of interests therein, improvements, and building. Of course the building may not b& registered sepa1·ately and. independently from the parcel on which it is eonstrueted, as aptly o~ed by .Chief Justice Arellano in 190£1.S But "buildings" a~ re'gisterable just -the same under the Land Re"gistration System. It seems clear that having expressly permitted in its initial sections <sec. 2> the .registration of title "to land or baildings or an interest therein'~ and_ ®clared that the proceedings shall· be in Tew. against the land and the buidings and impwvements thereon, the statute <Act 496) used in subsequent provisions the word "land" as a short term equivalent "to land or buildings or improvements"4. Unless, of cour.se, a different interpretation' is required by ~he intent or ·the terms of the provision itself, which is not the case of section 99. On the contrary, to consider buildings as within its range would be entirely in line with its purpose because .as rightly pointed out by His Honor, it would be unfair fo;r petitioner to -enjoy the protection 'of the assurance fund5 even as it refuses to contribute to its niaintenance. Wherefore, the appealed order will be affirmed, with oosts. POlra8, Pablo, Padilla, Reyes, Jugo;, Batttista Angelo . and Labrador, JJ., concur. · . , .. I reserve my vote ....... ·Marcelino R .. Montemayor. VII People of tlte Pltilippines, Plaintif/~Appellee vs. Mazimo Pacheco, aJias Emong, alia.a Guemo, Di;fenda.n.t-Appella:nt, · G. R. No. L-4570, July 31, 1953. 1. CRIMINAL LAW; TREASON; VENUE. - It is common knowledge that when the Government found it was no longer necessary to maintain one People's Court for the whole PhiJ.. ippines to try treason indictments, the Congress abolished that Court and directed th8.t treason eases "pending before it shall be heard by the respective courts of first instance. There is nothing to indicate congressional intention to disturb the usual rules on jurisdiction or venue of courts of first instance nbtaining before the .creation of. the People's Court. 2. IBID; IBID; IBID; TREASON A CONTINUOUS OFFENSE. - The information alleged in substance that Pacheeo, beirig .a Filipino citizen, willfully aided the Japanese in two instances, to wit: (1) the .arrest, maltreatment af!d shooting of Ceferino Rivera on January 2, 1945 in the Municipality of Polo, Bulacan, and (2) the arrest and torture in Manila, in February 1945, Qf Judge Eugenio Angeles, whom the accused had pointed to the Japanese as a guerrilla major of Polo, Bulacan. At the opening of the trial, counsel for the ·defense ques... tioned the jurisdiction of the Bulacan court to take cognizancEi of the second count, inasmuch as it refei:red to acts which occurred in Manila. Held: The crime of treason may be committed '_'by executing, either a sfngle or several intentional overt acts, different or similar but distinct aJ.1d for that reason" it may Ii"' considered one single .continuous offense. <Guinto v. Veluz 44 0. G. 909> • It Diay therefore be .prosecuted in: any province wherein some of-th~ esBential ingredients thereof occurred. <Sec. 9· Rule 106. (U.- S. vs. Santiago ,27 Phtt. 408; U. $, vs. Cardell 23 ·Phil.-- 201>. To- uphold appellant's contention would be to permit another prosecution against him in the Court 0£ First Instance of Ma.nils <See Guinto vs. Veluz supra.> Civrdenas and Casal for appellant. . Solicito.,. G1>1t1Wt1l Pompeyo Diaz and SolicitOT Pacifico P. de CastTo for appellee, DECISION BENGZON, J.: In the year 1950, Maximo Pacheco was tried for treason in the court o~ first instance of Bulacan, the amended information allegii:ig, in the first count, acts performed in Polo, Bulacan and in the second. acts in the City of Manila. The Honorable Manuel P. Barcelona, Judge, in a decision dated January 10, 1951, found him guilty aa charged, and sentenoed him to be imprisoned for life, to pay a fine of Pl0,000 aad to indemnity the heirs of Ceferino Rivera in the amount of P6,000.00. The accused appealed in due time. Bis printed brief saaigns four errors that raise two principal issues: (1) jurisdiction of the court to try the second count and C2> credibility of the witnesses. The. information alleged in substance that Pacheco, being a Filipino citizen, willfully aided the Japanese in two instances, to wit: (1) the a.rrest, maltnatnient and shooting of Ceferino Rivei::a on January 2, 1945 in the Municipality of Polo, Bulacan, and (2) the arrest and torture in Manila, in :February 1945, of Judge Eugenio ·Angeles, whom the accused had pointed to the Japanese as a guerrflla major of Polo, Bulacan. At the opening of the tri•l, counsel for the defense questioned ~he. jurisdiction of the Bulacan c9urt to take cognizance of the .second count, tn'asmuch as it referred to acts which occurred in Manila. Thf' Judge ovenuled the contention, adverting to its orders in previous cases on the same issue. We do not find in this record the reasons of the trial judge. Very probably, however, they refer to the same theory advanced by the People in this appeal relative to one continuous offense consisting of several acts, occurring in different provinces, offense which may under the .principles governing . venue be prosecuted in any province wherein any material ingred·i~nt of the offense is shown to have been committed. The appellant however cites Republic Act No. 811 that in dissolving the People's Court ordered all cu.sea then pending. therf!"in to be "transferred to, and tried by, the respective Courts of Fir&t Instance of the p1·ovinces or cities where the offenses are alleged to have been ~mmitted." · It is common knowledge that .when the ·Government found it 'was no longer necessary to maintain one P.eople's Coul't fot: the whole Philippines to try treason indictments, the Congress abolished that Court and directed that treasnn cases pending before it shall be heard by the respective courts of first instance. There is nothii:ig to indicate congressional intention to disturb the: usual rules fin jurisdiction or venue of courts of first instance obtaining beft\re the creation of the People's Court. Under· the l'Ules, the trial court's jurisdiction may be and should be upheld in this case. The crime of treason may be committed "by executing, either a .single or several intentional overt acts, differai.t or similar but dis.. tinct and for that reason" it may be considerEd one single continuous offaise. (Guinto v. VeJuz 44 0. G. 909). It may thPrefore be prosecuted in any province wherein some of the esBential ingr<>:lients thereof occurred. <Sec. 9 Rule 106). CU. S. v. Santiago 27 Phil. 408; U.S. v. Cardell 23 Phil. 207>. To uphold appellant's ·contention would be to permit another pro.. seeution against llim in the Court of First Instance of Manila <See Guinto v. Veluz supra.). Having disposed of the preliminary question, we may now examine the record. As to the first count, Isidro Rivera, Dominga Camatos, Antonio de Guzman, Federico San Juan and Regino Galicia took the witness stand, aJld their combined teatimony ~ows: In the morning of January 2, 1945 four Filipino makapilis Ctwo of them were Maximo Pacheco, 25, and Teofilo Encarnacion> entered the house of Filo.. mena de la Cruz in Pasong Balite, Polo, Bulacan, and arrested her son..in-law Ceferino Rivera, 24, as a guerrilla suspect, in the 'preMay 31, 195·4 LAWYERS JOURNAL 227 senee Of ·ms father Isidro Rivera, his wife Dominga Camatos and Filomena CTeofila) de la Cruz. The party was commanded by a Japanese officer. Maximo Pacheco, armed with a rifle, tied the hand& of the prisoner. .Theredter the captive was marched to the 'J8.p8.nese garrison at Polo, Bulacan, followed by his near relatives already mentioned, The latter waited for him at the gate for two hours, but in vain. The next day, in the afternoon, they returned in time to see 'rum with three other Filipinos. all tied, walking to the Isla bridge, Polo, guarded by four Filipinos, one of them the appellant, plus one or two Japanese soldiers. Near the foot·.'of the bridge the Filipino captives were shot dead. Antonio lie Guzman, 'l\,'hose house stood about. thirty meters from the place beheld the 'massacre, which was also seen by Federico San Juan, 1'~er., 38, and Regino Galicia, employee, 37. Antonio de Guzman swore 'it was this appellant who shot Ceferino Rivera on that occasion. · Appellant's overt act of taking part in the appreh~nsion of Ceferi.no Rivera, as a guerrilla suspect waa testified to by Isidro Rivera and Dominga Camatoa. But the defense contends that the 'latter is un~-orthy of credit because whereas she stated in direct examination that her husband had been arrested by four Filipinos '(one of them Maximo Pacheco) yet on crosr:i examination she answered it was a Japanese who made the arrest Cp. 285 -n.) But on ·the same page this woman declared: · "P Y los otrcs cuatro filipinos eataban alli mirando en compania del japones, desde luego? R El que le ato era un filipino. P Quien de los filipinos ato a au esposo? R Maximo Pacheco.'" There is consequently no reason to doubt her veracity on tlda score. Other quotations of the testimony of these two witnesses are 'submitted by appellant's counse~, in an effort to destroy their credibility. The:y are either explainable, like the one above discussed, or refer to unsubstantial matters, That thiR appellant took active part in. the· arrest and execution of Ceferino Rivera, we have no rcaSonable doubt. His mere denial can not overcome the positiv<' assertion of the witnesses. And his claim that he was also a guerii.Ua, was held unfounded by the trial judge. Anyway, we have heretofore declared that such claim ia no defense acainst overt acts of treason. (People vs. Jose Fernando, SC-G.G. No. 1-1138, prom. Dec. 17, 1947; People vs. Carmr.lito Victoria1 SC-G. R. No. L-369, prom. Mar. 13, 1947; People vs Carlos Castillo, SC-G. R. No. L-240, prom. April 17, 1947>. . The second charge is also adequately proven by the testimony ·of Judge Eugeitio Aiiaeles, hia son Gregorio, and Dr. Ciriaco Santiago. . . On February 2, 1945 about 7:30 a..m., the three were on their way to Hermoso Drug Store near Divisoria Marbt, Manila. Crossing a bridge on Azcarraga Street they met Ricardo Urrutia ,)f Polo, friend of Judge ·"'-ngeles, who stopped to tell them "the Ame.. ricans were already in Malolos." Hardly had the p&rty crossed the bridge when Judge Angele;;i was surrounded by five young m•~n all armed. One of them wearing a mask ordered him to proceed to lhe Air Port studio nearby, which served as Headquarters of the Kempei Tai, dreaded Japanese orgp..nization. One of the young men was the herein accused. Dr. $anti.ago and G1-egorio Angeles were Mt molested. In the studio Judge .Angeles was brought to a room wherein he saw seven Filipinos (including this appellant> headed by one Santos residing in Polo. The latter asked Judge Angeles if he was a guerrilla., and 1!fhen he replied in the negative he was struck with a piece of lumber. Then he was subjected to several forms of torture. Ue was boxed and kicked and given the water cure. But he stoutly denied connection With the underground resistance. This accused was in the room and informed the investigators that he (Judge Angeles) was the chief of the guerrillas of Polo. In view of this imputation the tortures continued. Fortunately for Judge Angeles, the Japanese began their retrea.t from Manila on February 3, the gaTrison was vacated, and ·he ma.naged to escape together with other ·prisoners. lt may be true, as contended by defense counsel that the ·tortures uiidergcne by Judge Angeles' were described. by him as the sole witness; but his apprehension BB a guerrilla was witnessed and related in open court by Dr. Santiago all:d his son Gregorio, compliance with the two-witnesa rule being thereby effected. Wherefore, after reviewing the whole record we find no hesita.. tion in finding this appellant cuilty of treason. And as th~ penalty meted aut to him aceords with section 114 of the Revised J>enal Code, the a.ppealed decision should be, and it is hereby, affirmed with coats. So ordered. Patra8, Pablo, Padilla, Tuason, Montema710t", Reyes, Jugo, Bautista. Angelo and Labnulo,-, J.J., concur. Mr. Juatice Feria took no part. vm Nica7UW Jacinto, Petitioner os. Hon. Raf"l Amparo, aa Judge of tM. Court of First Instance of Manila, Branch III, and Jose CojHangco, Respondents, G. R. No. L-6096, August 26, 1953. DEPOSITION; DISCRETION OF THE COURT.-ln the case of Frank & Co. vs. Clemente (44 Phil. SO>, it was held that the taking of a deposition rests largely in the epund discretion of the court. Although that decision waa rendered under the provisions of the old Code of Civil P~dure (Act No. 190), it is also applicable In the present case, in view of ·the P,rovisiona of section 16 of Rule 18. Jose P. Lau,.el for petitioner. Lo,-enzo Sumulong for ~dent.a. DECISION JUGO, J.: On November 26, 1961, Nicanor Jacinto petitioner herein, filed1 a complalnt against Jase Cojuangco, respondent herein, before the Court of First Instance of Manila, presided over by Judge Amparo, co-respondent herein, in Civil Case No. 16199 of said court, pray~ ing for an accounting o'f the assets of a partnership organized by Nicanor ·Jacinto and Jose Cojuangeo in 1939. Cojuangco filed an answer with a counterclaim, to which Jacinto in his turn filed an answer. Upon motion of Jacinto, the case was set for trial on February 22, 1962. On February 8, Jacinto served on Cojuangeo a notice for the taking of the latter's deposition by. oral examination on February 12, befbre a Deputy Clerk of the Court of First Instance of Manila. In the morning of February 12, 1962, the date set for the taking of the deposition o:i Cojuangco, the latter's counsel, attorney Lorenzo Sumulong, conferred with attorney Fernando Jaeinto, son and counsel of Nicanor .Jacinto, regarding the possibility of an amicable settlement. In view of this, the taking of the deposition was postponed. to February 1&, and then to Feb~ary 18, at 2:00 p.m. At one o'clock iii the a~ternoon of February 18 or on• hour before the time set for the deposition of Cojuangco, the latter served on Jacinto notice of this motion asking the court to order that the deposition be not taken at all, setting said motion for hearing on February 22, the date fixed for the trial. At the s&Dle time, Cojuangco served on Jacinto notice that he would take Jacinto's oral deposition at one o'clock p.m. on February 22. Ja-einto did not object to the taking of his deposition by Cojuangeo, but moved that the hour of thB taking be changed ·for the convenience of both parties. At the hearing of Cojuan&'CQ'S motion, Jacinto's counsel argued. against it. The respondent Judge dictated in open court the following resolution_: "The Court takes exception to the allegation that the taking of a deposition is a matter .of absolute right after the answer is filed. See section 16 of the• rules. The case is now ready' for trial, why don)t we proceed? 'l'he granting of the taking of a deposition is discretionary: to the Court under Section 16. And taking the circumstances, the eourt finds 228 LA WY~RS JOURN>AL May Sl, 1964
pages
227-228