G.R. No. 2249. July 26, 1905

The appellant, Yu-To Chay, a Chinaman, was charged with giving to
his codefendant, Ruperto Evaristo, a detective, 70 pesos and a bicycle,
as a bribe for wrongfully arresting upon an unfounded charge Aquilino
Cueco.

Evidence was produced tending to show that there had been trouble
between the appellant and Cueco; that a woman who had been living with
the appellant left him and went to live with Cueco. But the case, so
far as the payment of the money and the delivery of the bicycle are
concerned, rests entirely upon the testimony of two detectives, Marcelo
Magsalin and Isaias Susana. These two men took part with Evaristo in
the unlawful arrest, and may be considered as accomplices in the crime.
Notwithstanding this fact, we should not hesitate to convict the
appellant if these witnesses were otherwise above suspicion, and their
testimony was probable upon its face. The only evidence as to the gift
of the bicycle was that of Susana, but on cross examination he admitted
that all he knew about the matter was that he was in the store when the
appellant and Evaristo were there, and that Evaristo went away with the
bicycle, but he did not hear what was said between them. He claimed
also, that he went to the appellant’s house and received 10 pesos,
which he paid to Evaristo.

At a former trial his testimony differed materially from his
testimony at this trial, and he explained the difference by saying that
he testified falsely at the first trial through fear of being beaten by
Evaristo if he testified to the truth. He was in the employ of the
Government as a detective, but received no pay. At the time of the
trial he was serving in Bilibid a sentence imposed upon him for the
crime of theft, committed, apparently, while he was a detective. The
court below gave no credit to his testimony, and did not base the
conviction upon it. We, too, think that it is not worthy of belief.

Eliminating this witness the conviction rests entirely upon the
testimony of the other detective, Magsalin. He testified that he went
to the Chinaman’s house on two occasions. On the first the Chinaman
gave him 50 pesos, and on the second he gave him 10 pesos, which the
witness gave to Evaristo. He carried no written order of any kind from
Evaristo to the Chinaman, and it is apparent from the evidence that the
Chinaman could not have known who he was. On the first occasion he says
that Evaristo went with him to the street in front of the house where
the Chinaman lived, and pointed the place out to the witness. It is not
apparent why Evaristo himself did not go into the House and get the
money instead of sending the witness.

It appeared that this witness also had been a detective in the
service of the Government, and at the time of the trial was serving in
Bilibid a sentence imposed upon him for the crime of theft or robbery,
committed while he was a detective. He testified that he had arrested a
man whom he claimed was a thief, and the fact was entirely different,
and they said that he himself was the thief, and for that reason he was
in Bilibid.

We are not willing to convict the appellant on this testimony, and
the judgment of the court below is accordingly reversed and the
appellant acquitted, with the costs of both instances de oficio. So ordered.

Arellano, C. J., Torres, Mapa, Johnson, and Carson, JJ.,concur.