VOL.

1, DECEMBER 26, 1901 81

United States vs. Ramos et al.

[No. 120. December 26, 1901.]

THE UNITED STATES, complainant and appellee,  vs.DOROTEO RAMOS ET AL., defendants
and appellants.

1. CRIMINAL PROCEDURE; RES ADJUDICATA.—Where objections are made to the sufficiency of a

complaint in the appellate court and that court remands the case for a new trial the sufficiency of the
complaint is res adjudicata.

2. ID.;  ARRAIGNMENT.—Where a cause is remanded for a new trial it is nonprejudicial error to

permit the defendants to plead anew to the complaint.

3. CRIMINAL LAW;  EVIDENCE;  RAPE.—Although certain crimes, such as rape, consist of several
necessary elements, the testimony of a witness that the crime has been committed is evidence of the
commission of all the acts which together constitute the crime.

REVIEW of a judgment of the Court of First Instance of Pangasinan.

The facts sufficiently appear in the opinion.

George R. Harvey, for appellants.
Solicitor-General Araneta, for appellee.

WILLARD, J.:

At the former hearing of this cause before the old Supreme Court certain objections were made
concerning the
82

82 PHILIPPINE REPORTS ANNOTATED

United States vs. Ramos et al.

sufficiency of the complaint filed, which objections are in some respects the same which the
attorney for the defense now presents. This court annulled the judgment of conviction dictated in
the cause, remanding the same to the lower court for a new trial. The court must have deemed
the said complaint sufficient, since it would otherwise have ordered the filing of a new complaint.
This decision of the question is therefore res adjudicata.
Since the order dictated by this court vacated only the proceedings held by the trial court
commencing with the introduction of the evidence, the formal arraignment remained in full force,
and therefore in holding the new trial there was no necessity for requiring the appearance anew
of the accused to plead guilty or not guilty.
The accused were not compelled but merely permitted to testify before the taking of the
evidence offered on the part of the Government. This was an irregularity but did not prejudice
the essential rights of the accused, and therefore, in view of the provisions of article 10 of General
Orders, No. 58, is not sufficient to warrant the annulling of the sentence.
 The three elements which are necessary in order that there may be a conviction of the crime of
rape, according to the attorney for the defense, are all included in this one word. When a woman
testifies that she has been raped she says, in effect, that all that is necessary to constitute the
commission of this crime has been committed. It is merely a question then, whether or not this
court accepts her statement. It can not be said that the proofs are lacking of the existence of the
elements which together constitute the crime. In the present case we are convinced that the
woman stated the truth, and we believe Ramos to be guilty of the crime with which he is charged.
With respect to Torre we have arrived at the conclusion that he should be acquitted. He did
not rape the woman. When the two unknown persons presented themselves he ran away. It is
true that the witnesses for the prosecution stated that he arrived at the house with Ramos, but
there is no proof that he had knowledge of any intention then entertained by Ramos to rape the
woman nor can we see
83

VOL. 1, JANUARY 7, 1902 83

United States vs. Abijan

how Torre in any manner has lent his aid knowingly to the commission of the crime.
The judgment of the lower court is affirmed in all its parts in so far as affects the defendant
Ramos and reversed as to def endant Torre. The latter is acquitted of the crime of which he is
accused.
Affirming that portion of the sentence consulted which is in conformity with this decision and
reversing the remaining portion, with one-half of the costs incurred in this action taxed against
the defendant Ramos and the remaining one-half taxed de oficio, the case is remanded to the trial
court for further proceedings in accordance with law.

Arellano, C. J., Torres, Cooper, and Mapa, JJ., concur.

Ladd, J., did not sit in this case.

Judgment modified.

________________