GR 848; (September, 1902) (Digest)
G.R. No. 848, September 27, 1902
THE UNITED STATES, complainant-appellee, vs. JUAN CARDONA, defendant-appellant.
FACTS:
In the latter part of 1901, Constabulary Inspector Clayton J. Bailey, acting on complaints from residents of Gerona, Tarlac, seized approximately ninety heads of cattle found in the possession of tenants of the defendant, Juan Cardona. Among the seized animals was a caraballa claimed by Juan Jose. Jose testified that in early March 1901, while traveling with his caraballa, he was accosted by Cardona and four other men in an unfrequented place. Cardona, pointing a revolver at him, forcibly took his caraballa and cart. Jose and his companions identified the animal in the government corral as the one taken from him, and a certificate of ownership from 1896 was presented to support his claim. The defense attempted to show Cardona’s alibi for a different date (March 25), presented evidence of his good character, and introduced testimony that one Paolo Tañedo had purchased a caraballa at a public auction in Gerona in August 1901. The trial court convicted Cardona.
ISSUE:
Whether the trial court erred in convicting Juan Cardona of the crime of robbery.
RULING:
The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction. The evidence sufficiently established that Cardona, through violence and intimidation, robbed Juan Jose of his caraballa in an unfrequented place. The defense’s alibi for March 25 was immaterial as the robbery occurred in early March, and the date was not a material element of the offense. Testimony regarding Cardona’s good character could not overcome the positive and uncontradicted evidence of guilt. The claim regarding a defect in the taking of testimony (that it was not read back to witnesses) was a formal defect insufficient to reverse the judgment. The Court found the offense fell under Article 503, No. 5, of the Penal Code. The commission of the crime in an unfrequented place was properly considered as an aggravating circumstance under Article 10, warranting the imposition of the maximum penalty. The Court found no evidence that Cardona took advantage of his official position as provincial secretary in committing the crime, nor were there any attenuating circumstances under Article 11. The penalty imposed by the lower court was within the correct grade and was therefore affirmed.