GR 36243; (October, 1932) (Digest)
G.R. No. 36243; October 27, 1932
THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS, plaintiff-appellee, vs. NICOLAS FRANCISCO, ET AL., defendants-appellants.
FACTS
The seven defendants were charged with robbery with homicide and less serious physical injuries. They were accused of assaulting the Trozo Band during a fiesta procession, resulting in the death of musician Dionisio Dabu and injuries to three others, with damage to musical instruments. The trial court found no evidence of robbery but convicted all defendants based on a conspiracy to assault the band, sentencing them for homicide and physical injuries. The prosecution relied on confessions obtained from several defendants, which they later repudiated at trial, claiming the confessions were extracted through abuse and threats (“third degree” treatment) by Constabulary officers.
ISSUE
1. Whether the confessions obtained from the defendants are admissible as evidence.
2. Whether the evidence is sufficient to establish the criminal liability of each defendant, particularly Nicolas Francisco, for conspiracy to commit the assault.
RULING
The Supreme Court modified the trial court’s decision.
1. The confessions (Exhibits G, H, I, J) were deemed incompetent and improper evidence, especially against Nicolas Francisco, as they were obtained under coercive circumstances and repudiated by the defendants.
2. The evidence was insufficient to prove beyond reasonable doubt that barrio lieutenant Nicolas Francisco participated in the conspiracy. He was given the benefit of the presumption of innocence and the presumption that official duty was regularly performed. The Court acquitted Nicolas Francisco and Estanislao Roldan.
3. The Court affirmed the conviction of Dominador Esguerra, Jayme Amistoso, Gaspar de Dios, and Olimpio Garcia for homicide and physical injuries, but reduced the penalty for the latter offenses to arresto menor.
4. Estanislao Resare was found guilty only of malicious mischief for damaging an instrument and was sentenced to a fine and indemnity.
5. The separate opinion of Justice Imperial, concurred in by Justice Malcolm, argued that Nicolas Francisco should be held liable as a leader in the assault, but the majority did not adopt this view.
AI Generated by Armztrong.