THE UNITED STATES, PLAINTIFF AND APPELLEE, VS. GERONIMO LUZON, DEFENDANT AND APPELLANT.

The defendant in this case was charged with the crime of illegal detention.

The evidence shows that on or about the 22d or 23d day of November,
l900, the defendant, in company with seven other individuals, six of
whom were armed, went to the house of one Celedonia Santos, in the
pueblo of Marilao, in the Province of Bulacan, between 12 and 1 o’clock
in the night of said day, and by force and intimidation took possession
of said Celedonia Santos and her husband, Gregorio Mistica, and also
one Felipe Santos, and carried them away to the sitio of Tagalog, after
robbing the house of the said Celedonia Santos.

The evidence further showed that Celedonia Santos was detained by the said accused and his companions for a period of nine days.

The whereabouts of Gregorio Mistica had not been discovered up to
the time of the trial of the said cause. It was alleged but not proven
that he had been assassinated by the said accused and his companions.
Felipe Santos escaped from the custody of the defendant and his
companions on the same night on which he was sequestrated by the
defendant and his companions.

There is no evidence showing what property was taken bv the band from the house of Celedonia Santos.

The defendant attempted to prove an alibi. The judge of the
Court of First Instance of the Province of Bulacan, after hearing the
evidence in said cause, sentenced the said defendant to be imprisoned
for the period of seventeen years four months and one day of cadena temporal
and its accessories, and to pay the costs of the trial. The court
imposed this sentence under paragraph 2 of article 483 of the Penal
Code.

On the 3d day of July, 1903, the attorney for the accused presented
a motion before this court asking that the said defendant be included
within the amnesty proclamation of the President of the United States,
dated the 4th of July, 1902. After full consideration this court, in a
divided opinion, denied said motion and held that the amnesty
proclamation did not apply to the facts in this case.

On the 21st day of December, 1903, the attorney for the defendant
presented a motion in this court asking that a new trial be granted in
said cause.

On the 15th day of January, 1904, this court considered the motion
for a new trial, and decided that the determination of that motion
should be postponed until the consideration of the cause on its merits.

Section 42 of General Orders, No. 58, provides that at any time
before the final entry of a judgment for conviction the defendant may
move, either in the court in which the trial was had or upon appeal to
a higher court, for a reopening of the case upon the ground of newly
discovered evidence material to his defense.

The motion presented in this case does not state that the evidence
which the defendant would introduce on the new trial was newly
discovered, or was discovered after the trial of the said cause.
Neither does the motion point out what the evidence is, nor in what
manner it would go to prove or disprove any of the facts presented
during the trial or in what way the new trial would change the result
of the first trial. The motion for a new trial upon the ground of newly
discovered evidence will not be granted unless the following conditions
exist:

1. The evidence must have been discovered since the trial.
2. It must be such that with the use of reasonable diligence on the part
   of the defendant it could not have been secured on the former trial.
3. It must be material and not merely collateral or cumulative or corroborative or impeaching.
4. It must be such as ought to produce a different result on the merits on another trial.
5. It must go to the merits, and not rest on merely a technical defense.

The motion for a new trial here does not show that these conditions exist. The motion is therefore denied.

The testimony relating to the charge of illegal detention in this
case shows clearly that the accused, Geronimo Luzon, in company with
the seven other individuals, six of whom were armed, went to the house
of one Celedonia Santos on the 22d or 23d of November, 1900, between 12
and 1 o’clock at night, and did illegally take possession of the said
Celedonia Santos and her husband, Gregorio Mistica, and, after robbing
the house of the said Celedonia Santos, did take them away to the sitio
of Tagalog, within the pueblo of Polo; that the said accused, with his
companions, later took Gregorio Mistica to another sitio, and
afterwards returned and said to Celedonia Santos that her husband,
Gregorio Mistica, had been killed. (Folios 22, 23.)

The defendant and his companions illegally detained Celedonia Santos
for a period of nine days, after which time she escaped from their
possession. Celedonia Santos testified that she had not seen or heard
from her husband since he was separated from her by the accused in the
sitio of Tagalog, on the night of the illegal detention.

The evidence further shows that the defendant and his companions
also on the same night took and illegally detained one Felipe Santos,
but that he escaped from their possession on the same night.

The only defense offered by the defendant was that on the 22d or 23d
of the month of November, 1900, he was in the barrio of Prinsa, in the
house of one Vicente, sick, and that he had been in said barrio from
the month of October.

The judge who tried the said defendant found the evidence showed
that the defendant was guilty of the crime of illegal detention,
defined and punished in paragraph 2 of article 483 of the Penal Code,
and sentenced the said defendant, Geronimo Luzon, to be imprisoned for
a period of seventeen years four months and one day of cadena temporal, with its accessories, and to pay the costs. From this decision the defendant appealed to this court.

Paragraph 2 of article 483 provides:

“He who shall unlawfully detain any person, and
should not state his whereabouts, or should not prove that he had set
said person at liberty, shall be punished with the penalty of cadena temporal in its maximum degree, to cadena perpetua.”

The defendant here gave no testimony. concerning the whereabouts of Gregorio Mistica, one of the persons illegally detained.

This court has held in the case of the United States vs. Baldomero Navarro et al.^[1]
(2 Off. Gaz., 551) that an accused person, under the Philippine bill,
shall not be required in any criminal cause to be a witness against
himself. This ruling was based upon section 5 of the act of Congress of
July 1, 1902. It was held that this provision of the act of Congress
repealed by implication paragraph 2 of article 483 of the Penal Code.

In criminal causes the prosecuting attorney must prove all of the
essential facts constituting the crime and upon which the conviction
and punishment is based. The defendant can not be required to give
proof that may extenuate or aggravate the punishment. The accused has a
perfect right to remain silent and his silence can not be used as a
presumption of his guilt. Neither can the sentence be increased by
reason of the fact that the defendant fails to give proof in favor of
or against his culpability; he can not be convicted of a higher offense
than that alleged in the complaint simply because he fails or refuses
to testify.

Since the enactment of section 5 of the act of Congress of July 1,
1902, there is a difference between the old and the new procedure in
vogue in the Philippine Islands. Under the old procedure the court had
authority to examine the defendant in a prosecution for illegal
detention and require him to testify as to the whereabouts of the
person alleged to be illegally detained by him, or otherwise the court
could increase the penalty. If the defendant answered that he had no
knowledge of this fact, he was convicted under paragraph 2 of article
483 of the Penal Code. Under the present system the court can not
require the defendant to testify, because the law exempts him from so
doing; therefore the penalty may not be increased for his failure to
furnish proof.

Under the old procedure in prosecutions for illegal detention where
the defendant did not state the whereabouts of the person illegally
detained, or should not prove that he had set said person at liberty,
there was a presumption that the accused was guilty of homicide and not
of illegal detention, and therefore the punishment was increased from
that imposed for the crime of illegal detention simply.

It was argued that in the crime of libel the defendant might give
evidence of the truth of the alleged libelous publication and if the
accused was able to prove the truth of the publication and that the
facts were published with good motives and for justifiable ends, he
should be acquitted; otherwise he should be convicted. This provision
of the law does not require the defendant to give proof, but gives him
permission simply to present the truth of the libelous publication as a
defense to the crime of libel. Under the old law in force in the
Philippines, the truth of the libelous publication was not admissible
as a defense. The court has no authority to increase the punishment
simply because the defendant does not interpose this defense afforded
him by the law; while, under paragraph 2 of article 483 of the Penal
Code, if the defendant fails or refuses to give testimony, the
punishment may be actually increased.

It was also urged that under section 13 of Act No. 292 of the
Commission the defendant is permitted to relieve himself from liability
by giving information concerning the truth of the organization and
purposes of certain secret societies. This provision does not justify
the court in increasing the punishment for being a member of certain
illegal secret societies, but simply relieves him from punishment under
certain conditions; in other words, the law gives the defendant, in the
crime of libel and in actions for belonging to illegal secret
societies, etc., a defense which he may avail himself of or not, at his
own option. These laws do not provide that, in case he fails to avail
himself of the defense which the law gives him, his punishment shall be
increased. The defendant in these cases is not presumed to be guilty of
any higher crime by reason of the fact that he fails to give evidence
concerning the crime charged. He is simply held where he fails to avail
himself of the defense which the law affords him for the specific
offense charged in the complaint. He may avoid the penalty provided for
by law in the case of libel and of liability for membership in an
illegal secret society, in whole or in part, by testifying to and
establishing the defense which the law affords him.

Under paragraph 2 of article 483 of the present Penal Code the
defendant may be charged with the crime of illegal detention and unless
he gives testimony concerning the whereabouts of the person illegally
detained, or that he had set him at liberty, he may be punished upon
the presumption that he is guilty of homicide, an entirely different
offense from that charged in the complaint, to wit, illegal detention.
Therefore, it is the judgment of this court that the sentence of the
lower court be reversed, and, considering the aggravating circumstance
of nocturnity, the defendant is hereby sentenced to be imprisoned for
the period of seventeen years four months and one day of reclusion temporal and to pay both instances. So ordered

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

---

^[1] 3 Fil. Rep., 143.