G.R. No. 2100. September 15, 1905

In a written complaint filed on the 19th of April, 1904, the
defendants in this case, Matias de la Cruz and Crisanto Corpus, were
charged by a police officer with the crime of theft, in that, with
intent to gain, and without the knowledge of the owner thereof, they
took and carried away a gold ring set with diamonds of the value of 550
pesos, Mexican currency, and another ring, set with a sapphire and
diamonds, of the value of 250 pesos, Mexican currency, making a total
of 800 pesos, Mexican currency, equivalent to 4,000 pesetas, Mexican
currency, all of this in violation of the statute in such cases made
and provided.

The complaint having been duly allowed, the court after hearing the
evidence, acquitted the defendant, Crisanto Corpus, and sentenced the
other defendant, Matias de la Cruz, to two years’ imprisonment (prisionn correccional)
without making any order as to the restitution of the articles stolen,
or their value, nor as to the costs. From this judgment the defendant,
Matias de la Cruz, appealed to this court.

Even assuming that the crime of theft herein charged was actually
committed—that is to say, that the disappearance of the jewelry
belonging to the offended party, Tomas Cabangis, was due to theft—the
fact remains that there is nothing of record which satisfactorily shows
that Matias de la Cruz is guilty, or that he was the person who took
the said articles. He pleaded not guilty, and there is not sufficient
evidence of record to convince us that he had any participation in the
commission of the crime. The owner of the articles stolen testified
that he found in the possession of the defendant, Crisanto Corpus, a
key, with which the box containing the missing jewelry might have been
opened, but this fact, in itself, is not conclusive. He was therefore
properly acquitted by the court below. It does not appear that the
defendant, Matias de la Cruz, who denied it, opened the box with the
key in question for the purpose of stealing the jewelry, nor that he
had such key in his possession, or made use of any such key as alleged
by the offended party.

As to the extrajudicial confession alleged to have been made by the
defendant, Matias de la Cruz, before G. William Marshall, a member of
the police force, it should be borne in mind that the defendant, Matias
de la Cruz, in his sworn statement absolutely denied that he committed
the theft with which he is now charged, alleging “that he made the
confession to Marshall for the reason that he was maltreated * * * by
another person who appeared also to be a member of the police force.” A
confession made under such circumstances can not be considered as
competent evidence of the guilt of the person making such confession.
Section 4, Act No. 619 of the Philippine Commission, dated February 6,
1903, provides:

“No confession of any person charged with crime
shall be received as evidence against him by any court of justice
unless it be first shown to the satisfaction of the court that it was
freely and voluntarily made and not the result qf violence,
intimidation, threat, menace, or of promises or offers of reward or
leniency.”

There is nothing in the record to indicate that this confession was
made by the defendant, Matias de la Cruz, freely and voluntarily, and
that it was not the result of violence, intimidation, threat, or
menace. It can not, therefore, be received as evidence against him.

Furthermore, a person charged with a crime is presumed to be
innocent until the contrary is proved, and in case of a reasonable
doubt as to his guilt he is entitled to an acquittal. This is the case
here, and the defendant should be acquitted. (Section 57, General
Orders, No. 58.)

For the reasons above stated, we are of opinion that the judgment of
the court below should be reversed as to the defendant, Matias de la
Cruz, who is hereby acquitted, with the costs de oficio.

Let the case be returned to the court below with a certified copy of
this decision and of the judgment to be entered in accordance herewith
for its execution. So ordered.

Arellano, C. J,, Mapa, Johnson, Carson, and Willard.J., concur.