G.R. No.

L-45179

March 30, 1937

THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee,

vs.
BENJAMIN IRANG, ET AL., defendants.
BENJAMIN IRANG, appellant.
Conrado V. Sanchez for appellant.
Undersecretary of Justice Melencio for appellee.
VILLA-REAL, J.:
The accused Benjamin Irang appeals to this court from
the judgment of the Court of First Instance of Nueva
Ecija finding him guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the
complex crime robbery with homicide, the robbery
having been committed in the house of Perfecto
Melocotones and Maximiniana Melocotones, and
sentencing him to the penalty of reclusion perpetua and
to indemnify the heirs of the deceased in the sum of
P500, with the proportionate part of the costs of the
trial.
In support of his appeal the appellant assigns the
following alleged errors as having been committed by
the courta quo in its decision in question, to wit:
1. The lower court erred in holding that the defendant
Benjamin Irang had been sufficiently identified beyond
reasonable doubt, and in not giving due weight to the
testimony of the witnesses for the defense.
2. The lower court erred in not acquitting the defendant
Benjamin Irang on the ground of reasonable doubt.

The following undisputed facts have been established

during the trial, to wit:
Between 7 and 8 o'clock of the night of November 9,
1935, seven individuals with white stripes upon their
faces, two of whom were armed with guns and two with
bolos, went to the house of the spouses Perfecto
Melocotones and Maximiniana Vicente, where three
lights were burning, one at the balcony, another in the
room and another on a table. Some of said individuals
went up and others remained on guard downstairs.
Those who went up approached Perfecto Melocotones
immediately and ordered him to bring his money.
Melocotones answered in the affirmative but before he
could do what was ordered him he was attacked with
bolos until he fell to the floor. Later another armed with
a gun went up and approaching Maximiana Vicente, wife
of Perfecto Melocotones, struck herein the face with the
butt of his gun, making her lose consciousness
momentarily. When she regained consciousness he saw
her husband already dead. One of the assailants then
said to her: "Bring out the money and jewelry."
Maximiniana Vicente turned over to the man who had
struck her with the butt of his gun P70 in cash and
jewelry valued at P200, which she has kept in a trunk.
During the short space of time that she was turning over
the money and jewelry, she looked at the man's face
and saw that he had pockmarks and a scar on his left
eyelid. That same night the house of Juana de la Cruz
was assaulted by malefactors who had been firing shots
before arriving at and going up the house. All of them
had white stripe upon their faces. Juana de la Cruz
noticed that one of them had pockmarks and a scar on

the left eyelid and was dressed in a maong-colored suit.

It was he who opened her trunk.
After the malefactors had left Perfecto Melocotones
house, the latter's son Toribio Melocotones, who had
seen the assailants arrive but without recognizing them,
immediately reported the matter to the municipal
authorities and to the constabulary, who went to the
scene of the crime without loss of time. Maximiniana
Vicente informed Lieutenant Roman Alejandre of the
Constabulary that the person who had struck her with
the butt of his gun and taken her money and jewelry
was a man of regular statute, with a lean body and
pockmarked face. With this description, said lieutenant
went in search of said individual. Having arrested a
group of persons, he brought them to Maximiniana
Vicente's house so that the latter might identify among
them the one who struck her with the butt of his gun,
but she did not find such man. Later another group was
presented to her and in it she identified the herein
accused-appellant Benjamin Irang as the one who had
struck her with the butt of his gun and demanded
delivery of her money and jewelry. He was likewise the
same man arrested by Lieutenant Alejandre at midnight
on November 9, 1935, in the barrio of Tampac which is
five or seven kilometers from Maturanoc to which he
was taken and brought to the house of the deceased.
Juana de la Cruz also recognized Benjamin Irang,
through his pockmarks and scar on his left eyelid, as
one of the men who had gone up to her house that
same night. Once under arrest, the accused-appellant
Benjamin Irang made an affidavit in Tagalog (Exhibit B),
stating that while he was in the barrio of Tampac,
municipality of Guimba. Province of Nueva Ecija, on

November 9, 1935 at about 7 o'clock in the evening,

Fidel Estrella and Ignacio Sebastian arrived; that Fidel
Estrella invited him to go to the house of Ignacio
Sebastian's brother-in-law named Angel Talens because
Estrella had something to tell him; that upon arriving at
Angel Talens' house, Fidel Estrella invited him to go to
Maturanoc to look for business; that the appellant asked
Fidel Estrella why he wanted to bring him in the latter
told him to stop asking questions otherwise he would
slash him with his bolo; that Fidel Estrella carried a bolo
and Ignacio Sebastian an unlicensed firearms; that they
went to the house of Perfecto Melocotones in the barrio
of Maturanoc, Guimba, Nueva Ecija, and upon arriving
there Fidel Estrella, who acted as the ringleader,
assigned to each and every one of them his
corresponding place, designating those who should
assault that of Ursula Cabigon; that Benjamin Irang was
in the group formed by Fidel Estrella and Ignacio
Sebastian, which assaulted the house of Perfecto
Melocotones, having been assigned to stand guard on
the stairs of said house; that Fidel Estrella, once inside
the house, slashed Perfecto Melocotones thrice with his
bolo; that Fidel Estrella later told him that they had
succeeded in taking money and the shotgun; and that
after the assault they dispersed, each returning to his
own home. This affidavit (Exhibit B) was sworn to by
Benjamin Irang before the deputy clerk of the Court of
First Instance of Nueva Ecija , in the presence of
Graciano Pigol, the constabulary soldier who
accompanied him. Before Irang affixed his thumbmark
and took his oath, the deputy clerk of court asked him if
he understood Tagalog and when he answered in the
affirmative said deputy clerk read the contends of the

document to him. Asked whether he had any thing else

to add thereto, the appellant answered that he had
nothing more to say.
The defense of the accused-appellant is an alibi to the
effect that in the afternoon of the day of the commission
of the crime, he was in his rice field washing a fishing
basket. There he met Roberto Alcantara. Later he went
to the house of Buenaventura Javier to return the fishing
basket in question and to exercise on the rings (jugar a
las arogallas) with the latter's son Pedro, and two
unmarried sons of the appellant's uncle, in the presence
of several persons, returning home at 8 o'clock that
night. When he was arrested the constabulary soldiers
opened his box but found nothing in it. They later took
him in a jitney to the victims house in the barrio of
Maturanoc and upon being brought face to face with the
widow Maximiniana Vicente, Lieutenant Alejandre told
the widow: "this is the one who slashed your husband
and punctured your face." The widow answered saying:
"Is it that man, sir." As Benjamin Irang answered that he
had not left his house, the lieutenant gave him a blow
which made him lose consciousness. Then the
lieutenant said to the widow: "He is the same man. It
was he to whom you delivered the money and jewelry.
Look at him well. Identify him well." In the constabulary
barracks in Cabanatuan the soldiers and a sergeant
manhandled him from the night of November 9, 1935,
until 4 o'clock in the morning of the 11th of said month
and year, for having denied all knowledge of the crime,
making him lose his breath and punching him in the
stomach. When he could no longer bear the
maltreatment, he agreed to tell what they wanted him
to tell. Upon being taken for investigation, the

constabulary soldiers told him to agree to all that the

clerk of court might read to him, otherwise they would
again manhandle him at the barracks. He was not
present when the affidavit Exhibit B was prepared.
Neither are the contents thereof true. He merely affixed
his thumbmark upon said document for fear of the
soldiers.
Lieutenant Alejandre as well as Sergeant Lubrico denied
that the accused had been maltreated in the least.
The only question to be decided in the present appeal is
whether or not the accused-appellant Benjamin Irang
was identified as one of those who assaulted the house
of Perfecto Melocotones, killed him and robbed his wife
Maximiniana Vicente of money and jewelry.
Maximiniana Vicente, whom the accused-appellant
Benjamin Irang struck in the face with the butt of his
gun and of whom he demanded delivery of her money
and jewelry scrutinized the latter's face and notice that
he had pockmarks and a scar on his left eyelid. When on
that same night of the assault Lieutenant Alejandre,
guided by the description given him by Maximiniana
Vicente, went in search of the person who might have
maltreated the latter and robbed her of her money and
jewelry and presented a group of persons to said
Maximiniana Vicente, she said that the man who had
maltreated her was not among those who composed
that first group. Said lieutenant later presented another
group to her but neither did the widow find in it the man
who had struck her with the butt of his gun. In the third
group presented to her, she immediately pointed at one
who turned out to be the herein accused-appellant. The

man pointed at protested but when she told him that it

was he who had struck her in the face with the butt of
his gun, the appellant became silent.
The testimony of Juana de la Cruz to the effect that her
house, situated only about one hundred meters from
that of Perfecto Melocotones, was assaulted that same
night by some malefactors with white stripes upon their
faces, and that one of them, with pockmarks on his face
and a scar on his left eyelid and dressed in a maongcolored suit, who later turned out to be the herein
accused-appellant, opened her box, indirectly
corroborates Maximiniana Vicente's testimony that the
man of the same description was the open who went to
her house and demanded delivery of her money and
jewelry, having recognized him later to be the herein
accused-appellant. While evidence of another crime is,
as a rule, not admissible in a prosecution for robbery, it
is admissible when it is otherwise relevant, as where it
tends to identify defendant as the perpetrator of the
robbery charged, or tends to show his presence at the
scene or in the vicinity of the crime at the time charged,
or when it is evidence of a circumstance connected with
the crime (16, C. J., 610, 611, sec. 1196).
Maximiniana Vicente's identification of the herein
accused-appellant is likewise corroborated by the
latter's own admission invited to assault the house of
Perfecto Melocotones which they in fact the lower court
of the appellant's admission under oath upon the
assumption that it was not made voluntarily, is
erroneous, inasmuch as the only evidence that it was
not voluntarily is the accused-appellant's own testimony
that he had been manhandled by the constabulary

soldiers and threatened with further maltreatment if he

did not testify as they wished. This imputation of fortune
was categorically denied by Lieutenant Alejandre and
Sergeant Lubrico of the Constabulary, before whom the
accused-appellant made the admission and who caused
it to be put in writing. The imputation is likewise
contradicted by the deputy clerk of the Court of First
Instance of Nueva Ecija before whom the accusedappellant swore to his admission and who testified that
before he administered oath to said accused-appellant,
he asked him whether he understood Tagalog and,
having been answered in the affirmative, he read said
document to him and asked him whether he had
anything to add, the appellant affixing his thumbmark
upon it after answering that he had nothing more to say
(U. S. vs. Zara, 42 Phil., 308). There is no doubt that an
admission made under oath under such circumstances
cannot be considered involuntary and therefore is
admissible against the person making it.
This court is of the opinion, therefore, that the accusedappellant identity as one of those who assaulted the
house of Perfecto Melocotones and robbed Maximiniana
Vicente of her money and jewelry, is established
conclusively beyond reasonable doubt.
The defense of the accused is an alibi and has for its
purpose to show that he could both have been at the
scene of the crime between 7 and 8 o'clock at night
because he was in another place about seven
kilometers away at that time. This defense of alibi is
contradicted by the above-stated testimony of Juana de
la Cruz and by the accused-appellant's own admission
under oath Exhibit B.

The facts established at the trial as committed by the

accused-appellant beyond reasonable doubt constitute
the complex crime of robbery with homicide defined in
article 293, in connection with article 294, paragraph 1,
of the Revised Penal Code, and punished by reclusion
perpetua to death. Taking into consideration all the
circumstances of the case, the penalty of reclusion
perpetua imposed by the trial judge is in accordance
with the evidence and with law. It is not so, however,
with the pecuniary liability because, taking into account
the gravity of the offense, the indemnity to the heirs of
the deceased should be P1,000 and that for the stolen
goods not restored P390.
Wherefore, with the sole modification that the accusedappellant Benjamin Irang is sentenced further to
indemnify the heirs of the deceased in the sum of
P1,000 and to restore to Maximiniana Vicente the sum
of P70 and the stolen jewelry and gun, or to reimburse
the value thereof in the amount of P390, the judgment
appealed from is affirmed in all other respects, with the
costs of this instance to the appellant. So ordered.
Avancea, C.J., Abad Santos, Imperial and Diaz, JJ.,
concur.

Separate Opinions
LAUREL, J., dissenting:
I dissent.

The evidence presented by the prosecution consists in

the main of (a) Exhibit B, which is alleged confession of
the appellant herein, (b) the testimony of Toribio
Melocotones, son of the deceased, (c) the testimony of
Juana de la Cruz, (d) that the Lieut. Roman Alejandre of
the Philippine Army, and (e) that of Maximiniana
Vicente, widow of the deceased.
In his affidavit, marked Exhibit B, the appellant admitted
his participation in the commission of the crime
charged. This written confession was not given any
value by the trial judge. According to the appellant, it
was obtained from him by an unknown soldier, through
force and violence, under circumstances which makes it
involuntary and, therefore, inadmissible as proof of guilt
(U. S. vs. Zara, 42 Phil., 308; People vs. Buda Singh, 45
Phil., 676; Peoplevs. Takeo Tabuche, 46 Phil., 28;
People vs. Guendo Nishishima, 57 Phil., 26;
People vs. Francisco, 57 Phil., 418).
Toribio Melocotones testified that he saw the band of
seven robbers on their way to his father's house; that at
that time he did not know who they were but the he
now knows five of them to be the accused Fidel Estrella,
Jacinto Sebastian, Ignacio Sebastian, Juan Levaste
(alias Juan de Caste), and the appellant herein,
Benjamin Irang; that he saw the seven men enter the
yard of his father's house, where he had planted
himself; that the seven men entered the house, one at a
time, the smallest in the group, Fidel Estrella, first
followed by a bigger man, the appellant Benjamin Irang,
then by Juan Levaste (alias Juan de Caste), by Jacinto
Sebastian, by Ignacio Sebastian, and finally, by the two
members of the band who were unknown to him that as

soon as they all had entered he followed them but saw

one of them standing guard and firing several shots, as
a result of which he heard his brothers and sisters
shouting; that it was on that occasion when he came
nearer the house but was seen by the guard who
pointed a gun at him and ran away. The trial judge
brushed aside the testimony of this witness as unworthy
of credence and belief. He said:
. . . En primer lugar, cada uno de estos acusados fueron
sucesivamente llevos a su casa y presentados alli para
ser reconocidos en dias y noches sucesivos. Sin
embargo, dicho testigo no indico a ninguno de ellos que
fuera el que en la noche de autos asalto a su casa. Este
testigo., no obstante, no fue llamado como tal en la
investigacion prelominarde esta causa en el Juzgado de
Paz para indicar, de conformidad con los detalles que he
dado, que los acusados eran asaltaron su acsa. Es
verdad que esta falta de explicacion no es suficienta
para desacreditar su testimonio. Este acusado es uno de
los probatorio de su testimonio. Este acusado es uno de
los mas altos se entre to dos los acusados, por
consiguente, no puede decirse que era el mas pequeno.
Aun admitiendo que el testimonio del testigo al hablar
de que el primero que entro era el mas pequeno se
referia si volumen del individio. Fidel Estrella tampoco
puede considerarse como el mas flaco de entre los
acusados. Es de cuerpo regular y se confunde casi como
cualquiera de los otros acusados en su volumen, a
excepcion del acusado Emilio de Guzman, que es el mas
grueso de entre los mismos. Su testimonio, pues en
opinion del Juzgado, no puede servir ni siquiera como
un indicio de que los acusados eran los ladrones que ni
siquiera como un indicio de que los acusados eran los

ladrones que asaltaron su casa en la noche de autos.

(underlining is mine.)
Juana de la Cruz testified that her house had also been
assaulted by tulisanes on the same night and that she
had recognized the appellant as one of them. The
testimony of this witness refers to an event wholly
distinct and separate from the criminal act imputed to
the appellant in the case at bar, during the commission
of which she stated she was at her house about five
meters away.
The testimony of Lieut. Alejandre refers to the
investigation conducted by him and to posterior
occurrences, of scarcely any importance in proving the
identity and guilt of the appellant. Lieut. Alejandre
arrested the appellant on the strength of the description
furnished him by the widow of the deceased. How good
the description is may be judged from the fact that prior
to the appellant's arrest, Lieut. Alejandre had arrested
three other persons, later to release them as "wrong
parties!".
The only remaining basis for the conviction of the
appellant by the lower court is the testimony of the
widow, Maximiniana Vicente. In the opinion of the trial
court, this witness has sufficiently identified the
appellant herein. Lieut. Alejandre testified that when
this witness, Maximiniana Vicente, confronted the
defendant she recognized him as one of the assaillants.
This the appellant denied, stating that the widow
identified him "in obedience to Lieut. Alejandre's order."
On cross-examination, the witness stated that she was
able to identify the appellant "porque el Teniente

Alejandre le habia indicado que era uno de los que

tomaron parte en el asalto de su casa." When called
again to the witness stand she retracted this statement.
I am reluctant to join trial judge in attributing this
contradiction on her part merely to her ignorance.
Two important detail in this case deserve more than
passing mention. It appears that soon after the band of
robbers had deported, Lieut. Alejandre arrived at the
scene of the crime and conducted an investigation. The
widow, on that occasion referred to the appellant as a
man with pockmarks. About one month later, she
testified that she recognized him besides by a scar on
his left eyelid. A scar identifies a man more effectively
than mere pockmarks, these common. But I do not
know why it took the witness one month to discover this
important descriptive detail. The widow also testified
that she recognized the appellant, Irang, because of the
light because it was he who hit her with the butt of his
gun and because it was to him that she delivered
money and jewelry. It should be observed, however, that
the assaillants were disguised when they committed the
crime. This makes identification difficult, if not
impossible, and probably accounts for the fact that the
widow made no reference to the appellant's scar in the
beginning.
It is true that the finding of fact made by trial judge are
entitled to great weight and credit and should not be
overturned unless grave considerations warrant the
taking of such a course. But I am not convinced that
appellant has been satisfactorily identified in the case at
bar (U. S. vs. Asio, 1 Phil., 304).

The defense interposed by the appellant is an alibi.

While alibis are easily concocted and ,for this reason,
are received by court with great caution, I express the
opinion that conviction should be predicated on the
sufficiency of the evidence for the prosecution and not
on the weakness of the evidence for the defense. I am,
therefore, of the opinion that the appellant is entitled,
like his six co-accused in the court below, to an
acquittal.
Concepcion, J., concurs.

G.R. No. 28871

September 19, 1928

THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS, plaintiffappellee,

vs.
CLEMENTE BABIERA, JUSTO BABIERA and
DOMINGA BORES, defendants-appellants.
Zulueta and Cordova and Jesus Trinidad for appellants.
Office of the Solicitor-General Reyes for appellee.
VILLA-REAL, J.:
This is an appeal taken by Clemente Babiera, Justo
Babiera and Dominga Bores from the judgment of the
Court of First Instance of Iloilo finding them guilty of the
crime of murder, the first as principal, and the last two
as accomplices, sentencing the former to life
imprisonment with the accessories of article 54 of the
Penal Code, and each of the latter to fourteen years,
eight months and one day cadena temporal, with the
accessories of article 54 and 59 of the Penal Code,
respectively, and all three to indemnify the family of the
deceased Severino Haro in the sum of P1,000 jointly and
severally, and each of them to pay one-third of the costs
of the action in the justice of the peace court and the
Court of First Instance.
The six alleged errors assigned by the accused as
committed by the trial court in its judgment may be
shifted down to the following propositions:
1. That the evidence adduced at the trial by the
prosecution has not established the guilt of the
defendants-appellants beyond a reasonable doubt.

2. The Exhibit I of the prosecution is not an antemortem declaration and is therefore inadmissible as
evidence.
3. That the offended party's quarrelsome disposition can
be proved in the trial to determine who began the
attack.
Before discussing the evidence adduced by both parties
and determining its weight and probatory value, it is
well to decide the questions raised by the appellants on
the admissibility of evidence.
The first question of this nature refers to the character
of the document Exhibit I, which is a statement made by
Severino Haro in Saint Paul's Hospital of Iloilo on the
morning after the crime was committed.
Although said statement in itself is inadmissible as
an ante-mortem declaration, inasmuch as there is
nothing to show that at the time he made it Severino
Haro knew or firmly believed that he was at the point of
death, nevertheless, having ratified its contents a week
later when he was near death as a result of his wounds,
said declaration is admissible as a part of that which he
made ante-mortem "A statement made under
circumstances which would not render it admissible as a
dying declaration becomes admissible as such, it is
held, if approved or repeated by the declarant after he
had abandoned all hope of recovery." (30 Corpus Juris,
257.)
Passing now to a consideration of the evidence, the
prosecution tried to proved the following facts:

Justo Babiera was the owner of two parcels of land

situated in the municipality of Oton, Province of Iloilo,
Philippine Islands. On October 19, 1922 Justo Babiera
executed a contract of sale with the right of repurchase
in favor of Basilio Copreros whereby he sold the two
parcels of land to the latter for the sum of P124 with the
condition that if the vendor did not repurchase them on
or before August 1, 1923, the sale would become
absolute and irrevocable (Exhibit F). The period for
repurchase having expired, Basilio Copreros took
possession of said two parcels of land, and on March 24,
1927, made application to the registrar of deeds for the
Province of Iloilo for the registration of the consolidation
of his title to said parcels. On the 26th of the said
month, Basilio Copreros leased said parcels to Severino
Haro, municipal president of Oton (Exhibit G and G-1). In
view of this, on March 31, 1927, Justo Babiera filed a
complaint against Basilio Copreros in the justice of the
peace court of Oton for the recovery of the possession
of said two parcels of land. The complaint having been
dismissed on April 19, 1927 on the ground that it did not
allege facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action,
Justo Babiera appealed to the Court of First Instance of
Iloilo (Exhibit M). Later on, said Justo Babiera asked for
the dismissal of the complaint for unlawful detainer and
filed another one for the recovery of property (Exhibit
F). Inasmuch as Severino Haro was already in
possession of the aforesaid two parcels of land as
lessee, he bore all the expenses in the case of unlawful
detainer as well as in that for recovery of the property.
Fermin Bruces was Severino Haro's copartner on shares
in said lands. About the month of May, 1927, Justo
Babiera accompanied by his copartner on shares,

Rosendo Paycol, went to where Fermin Bruces was

plowing and asked the latter: "Who told you to plow
here?" Fermin Bruces replied: "Severino Haro." Then
Justo Babiera asked him: "If this Severino tells you to kill
yourself, will you do it?" "Of course not," answered
Fermin Bruces. After this interchange of words Justo
Babiera told Fermin Bruces to stop plowing and to tell
his master, Severino Haro, to come and plow himself.
Fermin Bruces informed Severino Haro of the incident,
and in answer the latter only told him not to mind it, but
to go on plowing.
On another occasion while Fermin Bruces was
transplanting rice on the same lands, Clemente Babiera
and Rosendo Paycol arrived and told him that if he
continued working they would pull out someone's
intestines. Fermin Bruces also informed Severino Haro of
these threats, who as before, told him not to mind them,
but to go on sowing.
On July 23, 1927, Jose Haro, brother of Severino Haro,
visited his land in the barrio of Bita, which was under
the care of Victoriano Randoquile. He was told by the
latter that he lacked palay seeds. At that time, Rosendo
Paycol was in his field, Jose Haro and Victoriano
Randoquile approached him and asked him to give them
some seeds. Rosendo Paycol answered that he could not
do so because he needed what he had for his own
farms. Haro and Randoquile then asked him: "Which
fields do you mean?" "The fields over which Copreros
and Babiera are in litigation," answered Rosendo Paycol.
Surprised at this answer, Jose Haro told Rosendo Paycol
that what he said could not be because the lot in
dispute was leased to his brother Severino Haro.

Rosendo Paycol replied that attorney Buenaventura

Cordova had told Clemente Babiera and Justo Babiera
that Severino Haro would never be able to reap or enjoy
the fruits of the land, because if they did not win the
suit by fair means they would win it by foul.
Ever since he had leased said land Severino Haro visited
it rather often, especially during the months of June and
July, which is the sowing season, trying always to return
to town early. To go to the land, which was in the barrio
called Bita, there was but a beaten path that passed by
the house of Rosendo Paycol, copartner on shares of
Justo Babiera, where the latter and his family lived.
On August 21, 1927, Severino Haro, as usual, went to
visit his land in the barrio of Bita, accompanied by
Gregorio Torrija, Benito Carreon and Pedro Tauro. On
arriving there Fermin Bruces, his copartner on shares,
told him that the day before he had found Clemente
Babiera's cow grazing on that land. It happened at that
moment Clemente Babiera and Dominga Bores were
passing by. Severino Haro then informed Clemente
Babiera of what his cow had done on the former's land
and told him to take better care of his cow in future and
not to let it run loose. He then ordered Fermin Bruces to
take the animal to where the Babiera family lived.
Severino Haro was not able to return to town until
almost 7 o'clock in the evening. As it was already dark,
he and his companions had to make use of a torch
made out of split bamboo to light them on their way.
Severino Haro went ahead, followed by Pedro Tauro,
who carried the torch, some 8 brazas behind, with
Gregorio Torrija and Benito Carreon following. On
Coming to a place in the road near Rosendo Paycol's

house, Clemente Babiera suddenly sprang from the

cogon grass, went after Severino Haro and struck him
with his bolo in the back. On turning his head to see
who had attacked him Severino Haro received another
bolo blow in the forehead near the right eyebrow. In
trying to defend himself with his hand he was wounded
between the index finger and the thumb. He then tried
to grasp his assailant but did not succeed and he fell to
the ground. Then Justo Babiera appeared and placing
himself upon Severino Haro's stomach, held the latter's
hands. Later, Dominga Bores appeared on the scene
and held both knees of the wounded man. When Justo
Babiera arrived, a voice was heard saying: "Hold him,
papa," and at the same time, Severino Haro's voice was
heard saying: "Help! help!" Pedro Tauro wished to come
near in order to help Severino Haro, but Clemente
Babiera raised his bolo in the air and kept on
brandishing it to warn everybody off. Pedro Tauro, in
fear, stepped back, dropping the torch he carried. Not
far from there were also Buenaventura Gabalfin and
Gregorio Paycol, who threatened to kill Severino Haro's
companions if they helped him. After the torch had been
extinguished they heard a voice which they recognized
as Severino Haro's saying: "Uncle Justo, have patience
with me, for I have done no wrong." Then they heard
another voice, that of Dominga Bores, which said: "Here
is the revolver; let us return." Before the assailants left
two or three revolver shots were heard. When Severino
Haro's companions saw that their assailants had already
departed, they drew near to where Severino lay
stretched out to see what had happened to him.
Severino Haro told them not to fear for he did not feel
as if he were going to die, and calling his copartner on

shares, Fermin Bruces, directed him to bring a cot and

take him to town. Pedro Tauro and Gregorio Torrija did as
Severino Haro wished, and on arriving at the barrio of
Santa Monica, they by chance came upon a truck in
which were some policemen. They place the wounded
man in the same truck and took him to Saint Paul's
Hospital in the City of Iloilo. When Severino Haro was
taken to the town he did not have his revolver and the
cartridge belt, without the holster, was found by
Gregorio Torrija near where the incident took place.
When Severino Haro was already in Saint Paul's Hospital
he was examined by Dr. Mariano Arroy, who issued a
certificate stating that he found the following wounds:
Three on the right frontal regions; one on the right
forehead taking in the soft parts up to the auditory arch;
on the right palmar arch; another on the left arm; a
deep one reaching down to the spinal column on the
four slight wounds on the right thigh; the ones on the
forehead and the dorsal region being mortal of
necessity. All the wounds were caused, in the doctor's
opinion, by a sharp-edged and pointed weapon, and
while the combatants were on the same plane, except
the wounds on the middle of the calf which must have
been caused while the assaulted party was on a lower
plane than his assailant, and the wounds on the right
thigh, which must have been inflicted while the
assailant was on a horizontal plane.
On the same morning, August 22, 1927, and in the
same hospital, Severino Haro made a sworn statement
before the deputy fiscal, Edmundo S. Piccio (Exhibit I),
relating the occurrence and mentioning the persons who
were present. This sworn statement was ratified by him

before the same deputy fiscal on the 27th of the said

month and year when he had given up all hope of
recovery.
In this statement, Exhibit I, Severino Haro, among other
things, said the following:
"Without warning, I received a slash on the left shoulder.
On turning back my face, I saw Clemente Babiera, and
he then gave me another slash on the forehead just
above the right eyebrow. At that moment I also received
a cut on the right hand, because on receiving the blow
on the forehead I defended myself with that hand. I then
grasped him because I could no longer support myself
due to my two wounds. Then I fell. When I fell, Clemente
Babiera's father placed himself upon my stomach, while
his (Clemente's) wife sat on my feet, while Justo
Babiera, Clemente's father, grasped my two hands and
said to me, "There, now draw your revolver" addressing
me. I shouted to my companion for help, for I felt I
would die and while they approached, Clemente Babiera
turned upon them, and said: "Do not approach for you
have nothing to do with this. Whoever comes near gets
a slash from this bolo." I shammed death and when they
left me, and upon seeing that neither Clemente, nor his
father, nor his wife remained, my three companions
came up to me from their hiding places. One Aunario,
copartner on shares of Jose Abada, who lived near there,
also came up to me, and later, Fermin."
In his ante-mortem declaration made on the 27th of
August, 1927 before the same deputy fiscal, Severino
Haro, among other things, said the following:

"They repeatedly passed their fingers over my upper lip

and at the same time see if I still breathed; they felt and
opened my eyelids and then inserted a finger in my
pupil, because they believed that if I was insensible, I
was already dead. They knelt on my stomach and one
knelt on my lower limbs, and made a pass with
something, which seems to me was bamboo or a bolo,
over the anterior surface of my calf, and Dominga then
took the revolver from me. I got up because I was afraid
Dominga would shoot me and when I attempted to
escape Clemente Babiera pursued me and gave me
another cut on the left side of the waist, and I think the
blow struck the ammunition belt, and if it had not been
for the belt it would have severed my waist."
The defense tried to prove the following facts:
On the afternoon of August 21, 1927 Clemente Babiera
went to a place called Caboloan, passing by the house
of one Oper, located in the barrio of Bita, Oton, Iloilo.
While he was in Oper's house, his father Justo Babiera
arrived, and some moments later Severino Haro also
arrived, and at once said to him: "Clemente, why do you
leave your cow loose?" Clemente denied the imputation
and said that his cow was tied. Severino Haro insisted,
and added that said animal had damaged his sugarcane plantation, and therefore, Fermin Bruces, his
copartner on shares caught and tied it, by his order, to a
mango tree. Clemente Babiera answered that he left the
case in his hands and that he could charge him what he
would, for the damages occasioned by his cow. As
Severino Haro charged him P2 for the damage,
Clemente told him that at the moment he had no
money, but that on the following day he would get

money from the town market and pay him. Severino

Haro accepted the promise and left. Clemente Babiera
in turn retired to his house, together with Dominga
Bores and his father, and upon reaching a coconut palm
they met Fermin Bruces, copartner on shares with
Severino Haro, who told them that he had already tied
up the cow as per his master's order. At about 7 o'clock
in the evening while Clemente Babiera was in his house
conversing with his father about the land which they
had in Caboloan, which was attached by the
Government, he suddenly heard a commotion; he went
to the porch of the house to see what had happened
and saw a number of persons coming one carrying a
light and another leading his cow by rope. Clemente
Babiera told his father what he saw and went out to
meet said persons, and saw Buenaventura Cabalfin
leading his cow by the rope and Severino Haro followed
by his companions Pedro Tauro, Gregorio Torrija, Benito
Carreon, Margarito Mediavilla and Fermin Bruces.
Clemente Babiera then asked Severino Haro: "Why are
you taking my cow away? Haven't I promised to pay you
tomorrow the loss caused by the animal? If you have no
confidence in me, then prepare a receipt showing that
tomorrow without fail, I will pay you." In reply, Severino
Haro only said to Buenaventura Cabalfin: "Get on,
proceed." Clemente Babiera took hold of the rope by
which the cow was led, and said: "Buenaventura, stop!"
Severino Haro then grasped Clemente Babiera by the
hand and pulled him to one side. Clemente Babiera
disengaged himself from Severino Haro's grasp, but
Margarito Mediavilla struck him with a bolo at the base
of his little finger. Feeling himself wounded, Clemente
Babiera tried to unsheathe his bolo intending to return

the blow to Margarito Mediavilla but failed to do so,

because he heard someone say: "Shoot him!"
Immediately thereafter he saw Severino Haro with
revolver unholstered, and without any loss of time he
went up to the latter and at that moment shots were
heard. Clemente Babiera then began to slash blindly
right and left without considering what he was at,
catching Severino Haro in the back, as a result of which
the latter fell to the ground on his back. Clemente
Babiera threw himself upon him, held him down so he
could not get up, and asked him: "Where is your
revolver?" Severino Haro answered that he did not have
it. Then Clemente Babiera raised Severino Haro's hands
and felt his back, but did not find the revolver. Justo
Babiera, Clemente's father, then appeared, and was told
by his son: "Papa, hold him, while I search for his
revolver." When Clemente Babiera saw Fermin Bruces
he thought that the latter meant to attack him because
he had one hand behind, where he carried his bolo, so
Severino turned on him, but his wife, Dominga Bores,
restrained him telling him not to approach. One Nario
also wanted to approach in order to defend Severino
Haro but dared not do so in view of Clemente Babiera's
threats. After having made fruitless search for Severino
Haro's revolver, Clemente Babiera, his father, and his
wife went back to their house.
After charging Rosendo Paycol with the care of the
children, the three went to town and passed the night in
Florencio Mayordomo's house. On the following morning
Dominga Bores went to attorney Buenaventura
Cordova's house and informed him of what had
happened. Buenaventura Cordova then went to
Florencio Mayordomo's house and told Dominga Bores

to return to the place of the incident in order to look for

the revolver and deliver it to the Constabulary if she
found it. Then he accompanied Clemente Babiera to the
office of Captain Gatuslao of the Constabulary at Fort
San Pedro, to whom they delivered the holster of the
revolver and the three shells they had picked up on the
night of the incident. Dominga Bores having found the
revolver in a furrow near the place of the crime took it
to Iloilo and delivered it to Captain Gatuslao of the
Constabulary between 9 and 10 o'clock in the morning.
Dr. Jose Gonzales Roxas, Constabulary physician,
treated Clemente Babiera's wound and certified that the
same was 2 centimeters long and half a centimeter
deep and was situated at the base of the little finger of
the right hand, taking in the cellular tissue of the skin
and the exterior ligament of the wrist.
In rebuttal, the prosecution tried to prove that at about
half past five in the morning of August 22, 1927,
Dominga Bores was seen in the ground floor of the
provincial government building of Iloilo, carrying a
package under her arm and from there she went to the
public market of Iloilo.
There is no question that Severino Haro had leased from
Basilio Copreros two parcels of land the ownership of
which had passed to him due to Justo Babiera's failure
to repurchase them within the stipulated period. Nor is
there any question that the latter tried to recover them,
first, by an accion publiciana (action for unlawful
detainer), and then by an action for the recovery of
possession. There is likewise no question that Severino
Haro paid the expenses of the defendant Basilio

Copreros for the reason that he was already in

possession of said lands as lessee. There is also no
question that Clemente Babiera's cow damaged the
plantings of Fermin Bruce, for which reason the letter
caught said cow, tied it, and notified his master of the
matter when the latter went to visit the lands leased by
him. Neither is there any question that there was an
agreement between Clemente Babiera and Severino
Haro whereby the latter ordered his copartner on shares
Fermin Bruces, to take the cow near Clemente Babiera's
house and tie it up there. In like manner there is no
question that at about 7 o'clock in the evening of
August 21, 1927, when Severino Haro and his
companions were returning to the town of Oton, and
upon their coming near Rosendo Paycol's house, in
which were Clemente Babiera, his father Justo Babiera,
and his mistress Dominga Bores, said Severino Haro had
an encounter with Clemente Babiera in which Severino
Haro received several wounds in consequence of which
he died a week later in Saint Paul's Hospital of Iloilo.
The only question to determine in the present appeal is
whether, as the prosecution contends, Severino Haro
was suddenly and treacherously attacked by Clemente
Babiera, aided by his father and his mistress Dominga
Bores; or, as the defense contends, Severino Haro
notwithstanding the agreement between himself and
Clemente Babiera by which the latter was to indemnify
him for the damages caused by his cow, wanted to take
the animal to town; that in trying to prevent it,
Clemente Babiera was grasped by the hand by Severino
Haro and pulled to one side; that in disengaging himself
Clemente Babiera received a bolo cut from Margarito
Mediavilla that wounded the little finger of his right

hand; and that Severino Haro then unsheathed his

revolver and fired several shots, in view of which
Clemente Babiera struck right and left with his bolo,
thus causing the former's wounds.
In order to decide the question thus raised, it is
necessary to take into account all the circumstances,
previous, coetaneous and subsequently to the incident
in question, and to determine who had, or could have
had, motives to assault the other.
We have seen that Justo Babiera sold two parcels of land
to Basilio Copreros with the right of repurchase, and
that, having failed to repurchase them within the period
stipulated, the title thereto was consolidated, in the
purchaser, who leased them to Severino Haro, the latter
taking possession of them. Justo Babiera restored to
every lawful means to regain possession of said parcels
of land, first by an accion publiciana, which failed, and
then by an action for the recovery of possession.
Severino Haro paid the expenses of Basilio Copreros in
order to carry on the suits. Such interested intervention
on Severino Haro's part without doubt must have vexed
Justo Babiera, for in the month of May 1927, he went
with his copartner on shares, Rosendo Paycol, to where
Fermin Bruces, Severino Haro's copartner, was plowing,
and asked him who had ordered him there, and when
Fermin Bruces answered that it was Severino Haro, Justo
asked him whether he would commit suicide if told to do
so by said Severino Haro, and then told him to tell his
master to go and plow himself. Later on, Clemente
Babiera, Justo Babiera's son, accompanied by his
copartner Rosendo Paycol, seeing that Fermin Bruces
went on working the land, told him that if he continued

plowing, Clemente would pull out someone's intestines.

If all these threats are true, as we believe they are, then
Justo Babiera and Clemente Babiera must have borne
Severino Haro deep resentment, doubtless believing
that it was due to him that they could not recover their
two parcels of land, and this was sufficient and
adequate to move them, upon the failure of lawful
means, to resort to violence.
It has been contended by the defense that the
defendant-appellant, Clemente Babiera, only acted in
defense of his life and property, having been obliged to
resort to arms on seeing his life endangered, contending
that the provocation consisted in that after Severino
Haro had agreed to an indemnity of P2 for the damage
caused, the latter wanted to take Clemente Babiera's
cow to the town, and that the attack consisted in that
Margarito Mediavilla gave him a bolo blow on the little
finger of the right hand, and that Severino Haro
threatened him with his revolver and fired several shots
at him.
Examined in the light of the ordinary conduct of men,
Severino Haro's alleged attitude, in having tried to take
Clemente Babiera's cow after having agreed to accept
P2 for the damages, and having ordered that the animal
be returned to its owner, is highly illogical, and not a
scintilla of evidence has been presented to explain this
change of determination, as unexpected as it is
unreasonable.
With respect to the allegation that Margarito Mediavilla
and Severino Haro began the attack, inasmuch as it has
not been proved that they were the instigators, it

cannot be conceived that they committed said unlawful

aggression, for he who has no reason to provoke, has no
reason to attack unlawfully.
The defense also attempted to prove that Severino Haro
was of a quarrelsome disposition, provoking, irascible,
and fond of starting quarrels in the municipality of Oton,
but the trial judge would not permit it.
While it is true that when the defense of the accused is
that he acted in self-defense, he may prove the
deceased to have been of a quarrelsome, provoking and
irascible disposition, the proof must be of his general
reputation in the community and not of isolated and
specific acts (Underhill Criminal Evidence, par. 325,
p.570), such as the accused Clemente Babiera tried to
prove, and hence the lower court did not err in not
admitting such proof. But even if it had been proved by
competent evidence that the deceased was of such a
disposition, nevertheless, it would not have been
sufficient to overthrow the conclusive proof that it was
the said accused who treacherously attacked the
deceased.
Another circumstance which shows the falsity of the
theory of the defense is that of having made
Buenaventura Cabalfin take part as the person whom
Severino Haro employed to lead Clemente Babiera's
cow. If Severino Haro's copartner, Fermin Bruces, whom
he had told to return said cow to Clemente Babiera was
with his master on that night, together with other
companions, what need was there of said Severino
Haro's employing the services of another person and
one not belonging to his group? The plan of the defense

necessitated a provocation and to that end they

conceived the idea of the breach of the supposed
agreement on the return of the animal through the
payment of an indemnity of P2, making use as an
instrument of one on whom the defense could depend
to serve as witness, and there was no one better suited
for such a purpose than Buenaventura Cabalfin who
according to the witnesses for the prosecution, was at
the place of the crime with Gregorio Paycol threatening
the deceased's friends if they offered to help him.
To rebut the evidence of the prosecution that Dominga
Bores was the one who by order of Clemente Babiera
took Severino Haro's revolver from him on the night in
question, the defense tried to prove that on the
following morning attorney Buenaventura Cordova, a
relative of the Babieras, told Dominga Bores to return to
the place of the incident and look for said weapon, and
that she found it in a furrow near the place and took it
to the office of the Constabulary in Iloilo between 9 and
10 o'clock in the morning. But the rebuttal evidence of
the prosecution disproved this contention and showed
that Dominga Bores did not have to look for the revolver
in the field, since at half past five in the morning she
was already in the provincial building of Iloilo carrying a
package under her arm.
With regard to the small wound at the base of the little
finger of the right hand which Clemente Babiera showed
to the Constabulary physician as having been caused by
Margarito Mediavilla, we are convinced that the latter
was not in the company of Severino Haro on the night in
question and could not have inflicted such a wound.
Bearing in mind the plan of the defense, it may safely

be said that in order to cast an appearance of reality on

the concocted plea of an unlawful attack and selfdefense, Clemente Babiera inflicted on himself the slight
wound; since, if in order to escape military service there
were men who mutilated themselves, who would not
wound himself slightly in order to escape a life penalty?
The facts related above have been proven beyond a
reasonable doubt and constitute the crime of murder
defined in article 403 of the Penal Code, there being
present at the commission of the crime, the qualifying
circumstance of treachery, consisting in the accused
Clemente Babiera having attacked Severino Haro
suddenly while the latter had his back turned, inflicting
various wounds on his body as a result of which he died
a week later, said Clemente Babiera being criminally
liable as principal by direct participation.
Justo Babiera and Dominga Bores are also liable but as
accomplices, because, while they did not take a direct
part in the infliction of the wounds that caused Severino
Haro's death, or cooperated by acts without which they
could not have been inflicted, or induced Clemente
Babiera to inflict them, yet they took part in the
commission of the crime by simultaneous acts
consisting in the former having mounted Severino
Haro's body and held down his hands, while the latter
sat on his knees while he lay stretched out on the
ground in order to allow Clemente Babiera to search the
body for his revolver, Justo Babiera and Dominga Bores
cannot be held as accomplices of the crime of murder,
inasmuch as it does not appear to have been proven
that they knew the manner in which Clemente Babiera
was going to assault Severino Haro, in accordance with

the provision of article 79 of the Penal Code, to the

effect that the circumstances which consist in the
material execution of the act, or in the means employed
to accomplish it, shall serve to aggravate or mitigate
the liability of those persons only who had knowledge of
them at the time of the act or their cooperation therein.
Although in the instant case the treachery is not
considered a generic aggravating, but a qualifying
circumstance, nevertheless, it does not fail to produce a
special aggravation.
To graduate the penalty, we are not to consider any
modifying circumstance of the criminal liability, for while
it is true that Clemente Babiera took advantage of the
darkness of nighttime, this circumstance is included in
treachery, inasmuch as, considering the fact that
Severino Haro was followed by several companions, the
accused would not have been able to conceal himself in
the cogon grass nor attack the deceased from behind
without being seen in time and prevented from
executing his criminal purpose had not been for the
darkness of the night.
The penalty provided by law for the crime of murder
namely, that of cadena temporal in its maximum degree
to death must therefore be imposed upon Clemente
Babiera in its medium degree, that is, life imprisonment.
The penalty provided for in article 404 of the Penal Code
for the crime of homicide is reclusion temporal in its full
extent, and the one next lower is prision mayor in its full
extent, which is the penalty that must be imposed on
Justo Babiera and Dominga Bores as accomplices in the
crime of homicide (art. 67, Penal Code). In graduating

the penalty, the aggravating circumstances of

nocturnity must be taken into consideration, without
any extenuating circumstances to offset it, and
therefore said penalty of prision mayor must be
imposed in its maximum degree, that is, ten years and 1
day.
As there are three persons civilly liable, one as principal
in the crime of murder and two as accomplices in that of
homicide, we must fix the share, for which each must
answer, of the P1,000 fixed by the trial court, in
accordance with the provision of article 124 of the Penal
Code, that is, P600 for Clemente Babiera and P400 for
Justo Babiera and Dominga Bores, each of the latter
being liable solidarily between themselves for their
share, and subsidiarily liable for the share of the former
and the former for the share of the latter, according to
the provision of article 125 of the same Code.
By virtue whereof, the appealed judgment is hereby
modified, and it is held that Justo Babiera and Dominga
Bores are guilty of the crime of homicide as accomplices
and each sentenced to ten years and 1 day prision
mayor, and to pay the sum of P400 jointly and severally,
and Clemente Babiera to pay the sum of P600, the
former to be subsidiarily liable for the latter's share, and
the latter for the former's share, payment to be made to
the heirs of the deceased Severino Haro, the appealed
judgment being affirmed in all other respects with the
proportional costs against each. So ordered.
Avancena, C.J., Johnson, Street, Malcolm, Villamor,
Ostrand and Romualdez, JJ., concur.

G.R. No. L-8332

November 13, 1913

THE UNITED STATES, plaintiff-appellee,

vs.
PIO MERCADO, TOMAS MERCADO, and
CATALINO MERCADO, defendants-appellants.
Eugenio Paguia, for appellants
Officee of the Solicitor-General Harvey, for appellee.

JOHNSON, J.:
These defendants were charged with the crime of
coaccion in the Court of First Instance of the Province of
Bulacan. On the 13th of March, 1912, one Claro Mercado
presented a complaint against the defendants in the
court of the justice of the peace of Baliuag. The justice
of the peace conducted a preliminary examination and
found that there was probable cause for believing that
the defendants were guilty of the crime charged and
held them for trial in the Court of First Instance. On the
21st of March, 1912, the prosecuting attorney of said
province presented the complaint, which alleged:
That the said accused on December 22, 1911, in the
municipality of Baliuag, Province of Bulacan, P. I., did
willfully and criminally, without legitimate authority
therefore, and by means of violence or force employed
upon the person of Claro Mercado, prevent the latter
from rendering aid to Maria R. Mateo in order that
Santiago Mercado might at his pleasure maltreat the
said Maria R. Mateo, in a violation of law.

After hearing the evidence adduced during the trial of

the cause, the Honorable Alberto Barretto, judge, found
the defendants guilty of the crime in the complaint,
without any aggravating or extenuating circumstances,
and sentenced each of them to be imprisoned for a
period of two months and one day of arresto mayor,
with the accessory penalties of the law, to pay a fine of
325 pesetas and in case of insolvency to suffer
subsidiary imprisonment, allowing to the defendants
one-half of the time they had already suffered in prison,
and each to pay one-third part of the costs. From that
sentence each of the defendants appealed to this court
and made the following assignments of error:
I. The trial court erred in overruling the objection of the
accused to the private prosecutor's question referring to
the character of the witness.
II. The trial court erred in reaching the conclusion that
the crime prosecuted was committed and that the
accused are responsible therefor.
III. The trial court erred in sentencing the accused.
IV. The trial court erred in not having the accused testify
in their own behalf, as they offered to do, allowing them
to testify in the same way as he did the sole witness for
the defense.
With reference to the first assignment of error, we find
by referring to page 75 of the record, that Mr. Ricardo
Gonzalez Lloret, attorney for the private prosecutor,
asked the witness for the defense, the said Santiago
Mercado, who is mentioned in the complaint presented
in said cause, the following question:

How many times have you been convicted of assault

upon other persons?

that complaint had been presented against him for the

offense of assault and battery.

To this question, the defendant Tomas Mercado objected

on the ground that the question was impertinent. Mr.
Lloret explained the purpose of his question by saying:

The prosecution, in order to show the circumstances

under which the crime charged here was actually
committed, showed that this witness, Santiago Mercado,
had assaulted and illtreated Maria R. Mateo, under the
circumstances described in the complaint. That was an
important fact. If the said assault did not actually take
place, then the theory of the prosecution must fail. If
there was no assault or attempted assault, there was no
occasion for the alleged interference on the part of the
said Claro Mercado to prevent it, and the probability of
the guilt of the defendants is greatly lessened. If the
witness who had committed the alleged assault, had
assaulted other persons and had been prosecuted
therefor, may that fact be considered by the court in
weighing the proof and in testing the credibility of the
witness? It was an important fact to prove that Santiago
Mercado, at the time and place mentioned in the
complaint, had assaulted or attempted to assault or
illtreat Maria R. Mateo, in order to show that there was
occasion for the inference of Claro Mercado.lawph!1.net

I wish to demonstrate that he has a pugnacious

disposition. I have had occasion to defend him in
various causes for assault.
Upon the question and the objection Judge Barretto
ruled that "the character of the witness has an intimate
relation or may have a strong relation with the facts
being investigated in the present cause. The objection is
overruled."
To that ruling of the court the defendant duly accepted.
Said exception is assigned here as the first assignment
of error. The only argument which the appellant
presents in support of his assignment of error is that the
question had no relation to the question which was
being discussed by the court and id not tend to show
that the defendants were either guilty or not guilty of
the crime charged; that questions tending to disclose
the character of a witness are immaterial. In reply to the
argument of the appellant, the Attorney-General
contends that the question was a proper question,
because it tended to impugn the credibility of the
witness and that such questions were for that purpose
material and pertinent. It will be remembered that the
complaint charged that on the occasion when the
alleged crime was committed Santiago Mercado was
attempting to and did assault and illtreat one Maria R.
Mateo. In answer to said question, the witness admitted

Generally speaking, a witness cannot be impeached by

the party against whom he has been called, except by
showing (a) that he has made contradictory statements:
or (b) by showing that his general reputation for the
truth, honesty, or integrity is bad. (Sec. 342, Act No.
190.) The question to which the defendant objected
neither attempted to show that the witness had made
contradictory statements nor that his general reputation
for truth, honesty, or integrity was bad. While you
cannot impeach the credibility of a witness, except by

showing that he has made contradictory statements or

that his general reputation for truth, honesty, or
integrity is bad, yet, nevertheless, you may show by an
examination of the witness himself or from the record of
the judgment, that he has been convicted of a high
crime. (Sec. 342, Act No. 190.) In the present case, the
other offense to which the question above related was
not a high crime, as that term is generally used, and we
assume that the phrase "high crime," as used in section
342, is used in its ordinary signification. High crimes are
generally defined as such immoral and unlawful acts as
are nearly allied and equal in guilt to felonies. We
believe that the objection to the above question was
properly interposed and should have been sustained.
The question now arises, did the admission of the
question prejudice the rights of the defendants? If there
was proof enough adduced during the trial of the cause,
excluding the particular proof brought out by this
question to show that the defendants are guilty of the
crime. then the question and answer and the ruling of
the court upon the same did not affect prejudicially the
interests of the defendants. Errors committed by the
trial court, which are not prejudicial to the rights of the
parties, should be disregarded by the court. In our
opinion the evidence clearly shows that the witness
committed the assault to which reference is made in the
complaint in the present cause. Whether he had
committed other assaults or not was a matter of no
importance in the present action. The admission or
rejection, therefore, of the proof to which such question
related could in no way prejudice the rights of the
defendants.

The second and third assignments of error relate to the

sufficiency of the proof adduced during the trial of the
cause to show that the defendants were guilty of the
crime charged. A question of fact only is raised by these
assignments of error. After a careful examination of the
proof, we are convinced that the same shows, beyond a
reasonable doubt, that the defendants are each guilty in
the manner and form charged in the complaint. We find
no reason for modifying the conclusions of fact reached
by the lower court.
With reference to the fourth assignment of error, an
examination of the record shows that but one witness
was examined for the defense: that was the said
Santiago Mercado. At the close of the examination of
said witness, we find the following statement by the
accused:
The accused state that should they testify they would
testify in the same way as the witness Santiago R.
Mercado, with whose testimony they close their
evidence.
Both parties close their evidence.
Even admitting that the accused, had they testified,
would have made the same declarations as those by the
only witness, Santiago Mercado, we are of the opinion
that such declarations would not have been sufficient,
inasmuch as they would have added nothing to the
record, except an accumulation of proof, to have shown
that the defendants were not guilty of the crime
charged. We find no reason in the fourth assignments of
error for modifying the conclusions of the lower court.

After a careful examination of the record, we are

persuaded that the same shows, beyond a reasonable
doubt, that the defendants were guilty of the crime
charged and that the sentence of the lower court should
be affirmed, with costs. So ordered.

Arellano, C.J., Torres and Carson, JJ., concur.

Moreland, J., dissents.