8/11/2019 10. U.S. vs Javier (1918)

1/2

Republic of the PhilippinesSUPREME COURT

Manila

EN BANC

G.R. No. L-12990 January 21, 1918

THE UNITED STTES,plaintiff-appellee,vs.L!RO J"IER, ET L., defendants-appellants.

Modesto Castillo, Eusebio Lopez and G. N. Trinidad for appellants.Acting Attorney-General Paredes for appellee.

MLCOLM, J.#

We find the proven facts as brought out in the trial of this case to be as follos!

"oroteo Natividad on the afternoon of #ctober $$, %&%', fastened his carabaovalued at P%'( in his corral situated in the barrio of )rapiche *unicipalit+ of )anauan,Province of Batangas. #n the folloing *orning hen he ent to loo after theani*al, he found the gate to the corral open and that the carabao had disappeared.e reported the *atter to the Constabular+, and a patrol of the Constabular+ underthe leadership of sergeant Presa, no deceased, on the $(th of Nove*ber folloing,encountered the accused a/aro 0avier, Apolinario Mendo/a, and Placido de Chave/leading the carabao. When the ladrones sa the Constabular+, that scattered in alldirections. #n the folloing da+, the Constabular+ found this carabao tied in front ofthe house of one Pedro Monterola in the barrio of 1anta Clara, *unicipalit+ of 1anPablo. )he carabao as identified b+ "oroteo Natividad as the one hich had beentaen fro* his corral on the night of #ctober $$, %&%', and b+ the Constabular+ asthe one seen in the possession of the accused.

As corroborative of such evidence, e have the ell-non legal principle, hich asapplied to cases of this character is that, although the persons ho unlafull+ too acertain carabao are not recogni/ed at the ti*e, and their identit+ re*ains entirel+unnon, nevertheless, if the stolen ani*al is found in the possession of the accusedshortl+ after the co**ission of the cri*e and the+ *ae no satisfactor+ e2planationof such possession the+ *a+ be properl+ convicted of the cri*e. 31ee 4. 1. vs."ivino 5%&%%6, %7 Phil., 8$'.9 :n the present instance, the atte*pt of the accused toinsinuate that one of the Constabular+ soldiers testified against the* falsel+ becauseof en*it+ is hardl+ believable.

)he foregoing state*ent of the facts and the la disposes of all but one assign*entof error, na*el+, that the loer court erred in ad*itting E2hibit B of the prosecution as

evidence. E2hibit B is the sorn state*ent of sergeant Presa, no deceased, hosesignature as identified, before the ;ustice of the peace of the *unicipalit+ of 1anto)o*as, Province of Batangas. Appellantuoted, 0ustice "a+ said in a case of the Philippine origin3"odell vs. 4. 1. 5%&%%6, $$% 4. 1., ?$'9 that it =intends to secure the accused in theright to be tried, so far as facts provable b+ itnesses are concerned, b+ onl+ suchitnesses as *eet hi* face to face at the trial, ho give their testi*on+ in hispresence, and give to the accused an opportunit+ of cross-e2a*ination. :t asintended to prevent the conviction of the accused upon deposition or e2 parteaffidavits, and particularl+ to preserve the right of the accused to test the recollectionof the itness in the e2ercise of the right of cross-e2a*ination.= :n other ords,confrontation is essential because cross-e2a*ination is essential. A second reasonfor the prohibition is that a tribunal *a+ have before it the depart*ent andappearance of the itness hile testif+ing. 3 4. 1. vs. Anastacio 5%&(@6, @ Phil., 8%?.9)he 1upre*e Court of the Philippine :slands has applied this constitutionalprovisions on behalf of accused persons in a nu*ber of cases. 31ee for e2a*ple 4.1. vs. )a*;uanco 5%&($6, % Phil., ?8 4. 1. vs. Bello 5%&(76, %% Phil., '$@ 4. 1. vs.

"e la Cru/ 5%&(76, %$ Phil., 7.9 :t is for us no to deter*ine hether the presentfacts entitle the accused to the protection of the Bill of Rights or hether the facts fallunder so*e e2ception thereto.

)he sorn state*ent of Presa as not *ade b+ >uestion and anser undercircu*stances hich gave the defense an opportunit+ to cross-e2a*ine the itness.)he proviso of the Code of Cri*inal Procedure as to confrontation is thereforeinapplicable. Presauentl+, the e2ception provided b+ section $&7, No. 7, of the Code of CivilProcedure and relied upon b+ the prosecution in the loer court is also inapplicable.Nor is the state*ent of Presa a d+ing declaration or a deposition in a for*er trial orshon to be a part of the preli*inar+ e2a*ination. 4nder these circu*stances, not to

burden the opinion ith an e2tensive citation of authorities, e can rel+ on the oldand historic case of R. vs. Paine 3% 1al., $7% 5ing

8/11/2019 10. U.S. vs Javier (1918)

2/2

With such a resolution of this >uestion, e could, as has been done in other cases,further find this to be reversible error and re*and the case for a ne trial. We areconvinced, hoever, that this ould gain the accused nothing e2cept dela+ for thetesti*on+ of the oner of the carabao and of the to Constabular+ soldiers, rebuttedb+ no reasonable evidence on behalf of the accused, is dee*ed sufficient to proveguilt be+ond a reasonable doubt.

)he facts co*e under article '%7, No. ?, in connection ith article '$(, as a*ended,

of the Penal Code. Accordingl+ the defendants and appellants are each sentenced tofour +ears, to *onths, and one da+ ofpresidio correccional, ith the accessor+penalties provided b+ la, and to pa+ one-third part of costs of both instances thecarabao shall be returned to "oroteo Natividad, if this has not alread+ been done. 1oordered.

2