You are on page 1of 3

THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff and appellee, vs.

ALEJANDRO
MERCADEJAS, defendant and appellant.
1958-04-17 | G.R. No. 18176-R (CA)
COURT OF APPEALS
DECISION
SAN JOSE, J.:
The Court of First Instance of Quezon found Alejandro Mercadejas guilty of a violation of Republic Act No.
145 and sentenced him "to pay a fine of P1,000, or to suffer an imprisonment of two years, and to pay the
costs" (p. 73, rec.). Not being satisfied with the decision, he interposed the present appeal assigning three
errors allegedly committed by the trial court to wit:
1. In finding the accused guilty of the offense charged beyond reasonable doubt, the evidence of the
prosecution being equivocal and insufficient for conviction.
2. In taking into consideration for purposes of the present case the prior conviction of the accused in
another case, contrary to the constitutional rights of the accused.
3. In rendering a judgment in the alternative, thus acting in excess of its jurisdiction.
The undisputed facts are as follows: Modesta Agueba of Yawe, Padre Burgos, Quezon province, is the widow
of the late Bernardo Tina, a United States Army soldier who died in Bataan. As such widow, she had been the
beneficiary of back pay, pension and insurance benefits from the United States government. She had
received from said government several checks in payment of her benefits among which was a check in the
sum of P2,241.20 (p. 13, t.s.n.) and another check for $2,286.65 (p.14, t.s.n.).
The prosecution adduced evidence showing that for the assistance given by him to Modesta Agueba in
connection with her claim for insurance benefits, the appellant received form her claim for insurance benefits,
the appellant received from her P1,000 out of the sum of P2,241.20 (p. 10, t.s.n.), one half of the sum of
$2,286.65 (pp. 14-15,t.s.n.), and one half of the monthly pension benefits (p.15, t.s.n.), making a total of
P4,712.10.
Testifying on his own behalf, the appellant simply denied having rendered any assistance or service to
Modesta Agueba (p. 94, t.s.n.) and having received any amount from her (pp. 77,78, t.s.n.)
It is now claimed by the appellant in support of his first assigned error that the evidence for the prosecution is
not sufficient to justify his conviction. But the record discloses that for the prosecution Arturo L. Dingcong
testified that as a field examiner and investigator of the United States Veterans' Administration, he was sent to
Lucena, Quezon, to find out if it was true that the appellant, as stated in an anonymous letter received by his
office, was victimizing pensioners by charging excessive fees for the assistance he gave them in securing
benefits for them from the United States government, and that having found that the accusation was true he
took the necessary steps for the filing of the present action against said appellant. On her part, Modesta
Agueba, principal witness for the government, stated under oath that the appellant assisted her in the
preparation of affidavits which were necessary for her insurance claim, and that for such services, the
appellant received from her sum of P1,000 plus one half of $2,286.65 and one-half of all her monthly
pensions. Felipe Aguilar, another prosecution witness said in turn that he saw Modesta Agueba "gave
one-half of the amount to Mercadejas" the amount being "more than P2,000" (p. 47, t.s.n.). It is therefore,
evident from the testimony of these witnesses for the prosecution that appellant assisted Modesta Agueba in
the preparation of the latter's insurance claim for such assistance he received from said Modesta Agueba the
amount of P4,712.10.
| Page 1 of 3

The lower court gave due weight to the testimony of these witnesses for the People, and in the absence of
any showing that it failed to consider circumstances affecting their credibility, we are not justified to disturb its
finding, much more so when it had the opportunity to observe the demeanor of said witnesses while testifying
on the witness stand. On the other hand, the appellant simply denied having assisted Modesta Agueba in the
preparation of her. Such denials made by the appellant cannot prevail over the positive testimony of the
witnesses for the prosecution.
"No competent evidence has been presented to show why the witnesses for the prosecution should
testify falsely..."
"...in the opinion of the court, in weighing contradictory declarations and statements, greater weight
must generally be given to the positive testimony of the witnesses for the prosecution than to the
denials of the defendant." (People vs. Gonzales, 76 Phil. 473, 478-479.)
But it is further claimed by the appellant that it was Geronimo Maria Coll who prepared the papers for
Modesta Agueba. If this were true, it was his duty to call Geronimo Maria Coll to the witness stand so as to
corroborate his assertions, especially when he told the trial court that Geronimo Maria Coll was "willing to
assume responsibility and state that he was the one who helped Modesta Agueba in the preparation of the
papers" (p. 91, t.s.n.) But he failed to give said Geronimo Maria Coll the amount necessary for transportation
from Padre Burgos to Lucena (see p. 91, t.s.n.). Thus, he did not exert any effort to secure the presence of
Geronimo Maria Coll at the trial.
We are, therefore, of the opinion and so hold that the trial court did not commit the first assigned error. Nor did
it commit the second error assigned by the appellant inasmuch as we do not believe that the conviction of
said appellant in a prior case had caused any influence upon the trial court since the evidence adduced by the
prosecution in this case is sufficient to establish the guilt of the appellant.
As to the third assigned error, we hold that the law does not permit any court to impose a sentence in the
alternative its duty being to indicate the penalty imposed definitely and positively (U.S. s. Chong Ting et al., 23
Phil. 120)
Moreover, the appellant is bound to indemnify Modesta Agueba in the sum of P4,692.10, representing the
amount he illegally received from her after deducting the sum of P20 which is the amount he is entitled to
receive for his services under Republic Act No. 145.
There is no question that said Republic Act No. 145 is a special laws and considering that Article 10 of the
Revised Penal Code states that the provisions of said Code shall be supplementary to special laws under
which offenses are punishable unless the latter shall be specifically provide the contrary, and there being
nothing to the contrary in said Republic Act No. 145, it is safe to conclude that the provisions of Articles 100
and 39of the Revised Penal Code are applicable to the appellant who is found guilty of a violation of Republic
Act No. 145. To this effect, we hold that in case the appellant shall fail to pay the fine herein imposed upon
him as well as the indemnity in the above sum of P4,692.10, he shall be bound to suffer subsidiary
imprisonment in the manner provided for in Article 39 of the Revised Penal Code (People vs. Moreno 60 Phil.
712; Copiaco vs. Luzon Brokerage, 66 Phil. 184).
WHEREFORE, the decision appealed from is hereby modified and the appellant is hereby found guilty
beyond reasonable doubt of a violation of Republic Act No. 145 and is sentenced to pay a fine of P1,000 and
to indemnify Modesta Agueba in the sum of P4,692.10, with the corresponding subsidiary imprisonment
provided that such subsidiary imprisonment shall in no case exceed six (6) months. With costs in both
instances. So ordered.
JUDGMENT MODIFIED.

| Page 2 of 3

Ocampo and Santiago, JJ., concur.


Judgment modified.

| Page 3 of 3

You might also like