G.R. No. 1399. February 12, 1904

Please log in to request a case brief.

3 Phil. 320

[ G.R. No. 1399. February 12, 1904 ]




The contradictions of the witnesses for the prosecution in this
cause are so numerous and of such a nature that their testimony can not
produce conviction, beyond all reasonable doubt, of the guilt of the
accused. The complaining witness, Vicenta Andoni, testifies that the
shirt which she wore on the night of the occurrence, and which was
introduced in evidence, was torn in the struggle which she had with the
accused while he was attempting to ravish her. This statement is
overcome by the testimony of the eyewitnesses, Casimira Jereus and
Basilisa Ylustre, called for the prosecution, who testified under oath
that the rents in the shirt were caused by the effort made by the
complaining witness to extricate herself from the hands of the
policeman Sebio (Eusebio Sablaon), who tried to take her out of the
house by force. The little girl, Genoveva Jamora, who was also a
witness for the prosecution, after first attributing these rents to the
struggle between the complaining witness and the accused, said later
that they were caused by the struggle of the policeman with the
complaining witness and insisted definitely on this last statement.

Casimira Jereus testified that she did not see the defendant trying
to compel the complaining witness to lie down on the floor, as the
latter alleges in her testimony, and Basilisa Ylustre says, among other
statements which are absolutely self contradictory, that she did not
see the defendant do anything beyond trying to persuade the complainant
to accede to his desire.

The same witness, Basilisa Ylustre, testifies that during the
occurrence which has been the cause of this prosecution there was no
light in the house of the complainant and the windows of the house were
closed, while Hilario Flores, another witness for the prosecution,
states that he saw the occurrence from the street because the windows
of the
house, which is low, were open and the house was clearly illuminated.

From the whole of the testimony, that of the prosecution as well as
that of the defense, it would appear, if the charge is true, that the
defendant attempted to ravish Vicenta Andoni in the presence, of the
four witnesses for the prosecution who were with her in the same room,
and furthermore in the presence of several other people who were in the
street serenading Vicenta’s house, and who, on account of the house
being very low, could and did see everything which transpired in the
house. Under these circumstances it appears to us highly improbable
that rape would be attempted.

It appears, nevertheless, that the accused and his companion, the
policeman Eusebio Sablaon, forced open the door of the house of Vicenta
Andoni in order to enter it, and tried, under one pretext or another,
to take the said Vicenta from her house by force and against her will.
These acts may perhaps constitute the crime of forcible entry, or that
of coercion, and the prosecuting officer may take such action in the
premises as he deems expedient in relation thereto.

Therefore we reverse the decision appealed from and acquit the
defendant, reserving to the prosecuting officer the right to institute
such prosecution as he may deem proper in view of the facts which have
been established in the case, with the costs of both instances de oficio. So ordered.

Arellano, C. J., Torres, Cooper, Willard, and Johnson, JJ., concur.



I dissent because I think that the evidence adduced at the trial is
sufficient to warrant a conviction and that the judgment of the court
below should be affirmed.


Date created: January 16, 2019


Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Apply Filters