GR 1113; (April, 1903) (Digest)
G.R. No. 1113 : April 15, 1903
THE UNITED STATES, complainant-appellee, vs. PEDRO ABUAN, ET AL., defendants-appellants.
FACTS:
The defendants were convicted of robbery in the Court of First Instance. They appealed, raising fourteen assignments of error. These assignments challenged the sufficiency and intelligibility of the complaint, the absence of a key eyewitness for the prosecution, the sufficiency of the evidence and credibility of witnesses, and alleged irregularities in the preliminary hearing before the justice of the peace.
ISSUE:
Whether the trial court committed reversible errors regarding: (1) the sufficiency of the complaint; (2) the prosecution’s failure to present an eyewitness; (3) the sufficiency of the evidence; and (4) the alleged irregularities in the preliminary investigation.
RULING:
The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction with modification.
1. On the Complaint: The complaint was held to be sufficient and intelligible. The Court ruled that Section 90 of the Code of Civil Procedure, cited by the defense, applies only to civil actions and not to criminal complaints.
2. On the Absent Witness: The prosecution’s failure to present eyewitness Severina Lomboy was not a ground for a new trial. The Court held that the defendants had the right to compulsory process to secure her testimony if they desired it. The presumption that evidence willfully suppressed is adverse does not apply, as there was no showing of willful suppression.
3. On the Sufficiency of Evidence: The Court found the evidence presented sufficient to support the conviction, and questions regarding the credibility of witnesses were within the province of the trial court.
4. On the Preliminary Hearing: Proceedings before the justice of the peace are not automatically part of the record on appeal. Any claim that witnesses testified differently or that irregularities occurred during the preliminary investigation should have been formally proven and made part of the record in the Court of First Instance. Since this was not done, these assignments of error were without merit.
5. Modification of Penalty: The lower court’s imposition of a fine was modified. As the law for the crime of robbery did not authorize a fine, the Court construed the amount as indemnity to the injured party. The judgment was affirmed with this modification.