Plaintiff-Appellee Vs Vs Defendants-Appellants Paulino Gullas, Attorney-General Jaranilla

EN BANC
[G.R. Nos. 32394, 32395. September 5, 1930.]
THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS , plaintiff-appellee, vs .

SANDAL, ARIMAO, LONSING, MAMA, and PAMPANG , defendants-
appellants.
Paulino Gullas, for appellants.

Attorney-General Jaranilla, for appellee.
SYLLABUS
1. CRIMINAL PROCEDURE; JUDICIAL DISCRETION; EXCLUSION OF

WITNESSES. — Under the circumstances of the case, it lies within the trial court's
discretion to allow or not to allow a witness to testify, who, notwithstanding the order
excluding witnesses from the court room, remained there, although this court believes
that the testimony of said witnesses should have been admitted. And since there is
nothing to show what this witness would have stated in his testimony, it cannot be held
that his failure to testify has materially affected the appellants' defense.
2. ID.; ID.; REFUSAL OF COURT TO REQUIRE FISCAL TO EXHIBIT TESTIMONY
TAKEN AT PRELIMINARY INVESTIGATION. — The only effect of the trial court's failure
to require the fiscal to exhibit the testimony given by the witnesses during the
preliminary investigation is to entitle the defense to adduce secondary evidence on the
testimony of said witnesses, for the purpose of attacking their veracity, should they be
presented to testify during the trial.
3. ID.; ID.; TIME TO PRESENT WITNESS. — The court's refusal to grant the
defense a continuance in order to present a witness is an act wholly within its
discretion, and no abuse thereof has been shown in this case, especially in view of the
fact that the court was not informed of the nature of this witness's testimony.
DECISION
AVANCEÑA , C.J : p
The Moros Sandal, Arimao, Lonsing, Mama, and Pampang appeal from the
judgment of the Court of First Instance of Lanao convicting them of murder committed
on the 18th of February, 1929, upon the person of Eleno Lamorena, and sentencing
each of them to twenty years of cadena temporal, with the accessories of law, to
indemnify the heirs of the deceased jointly and severally in the amount of P1,000, and to
pay their proportional part of the costs.
On the date mentioned, in Abaga, District of Monungan, Province of Lanao,
Inambar, a Moro woman, heard the appellant Sandal call the deceased, and later saw
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2017 cdasiaonline.com
them engaged in conversation. While the two were talking, appellant Pampang went up
to them and with a hammer struck the deceased on the back of the neck, felling him to
the ground. Sandal and the rest of the appellants, Lonsing, Arimao, and Mama, then
closed in on the fallen man beating him to death.
Moro Dimaponong testi ed that early in the morning of that day, he saw Eleno,
the deceased, in Tomas Permites' warehouse, while the appellants were nearby
constructing a house. When witness returned to the warehouse, he saw neither the
deceased nor the defendants where he had been them before. On that night as he was
going home, witness saw appellants near a sawmill, carrying the corpse of Eleno, which
they threw into the river. During the inquiry made by the Constabulary lieutenant into
Eleno's disappearance, Dimaponong testi ed to this effect, and the corpse was found
in that part of the river indicated by him.
Doctor Pablo Hamoy in the post-mortem examination found the following
lesions: The right side of the neck and the right shoulder were bruised; the neck was
fractured and the right shoulder dislocated; the right eyes was bruised; marked
cyanosis and acute hemorrhage of both eyes which were somewhat sunken; marked
cyanosis of the lips with the incisors jutting forward and loose cyanosis and
hemorrhage of the gums, and hemorrhage of the nose; cyanosis of the whole face, a
wound in the left arm and forearm, and a contusion on the breast and abdomen.
The following facts of record explain the motive of the assault: When Tomas
Permites went to Manila to look after certain matters he left Eleno in charge of his
interests in Monungan. While Permites was in Manila, the appellants caused some
injuries to his carabaos, as a result of which Eleno had a dispute with them. Eleno sent
word of what happened to Permites in Manila, and when the latter returned to
Monungan, he veri ed the facts and led a complaint against the appellants. Eleno was
to be the principal witness, and the defendants knew it.
The appellants denied the facts set forth and attempted to prove an alibi.
Upon consideration of the evidence for both sides, we agree with the conclusion
of the trial court that the appellants killed Eleno in the manner described above. The
court below did not err in weighing the evidence.
Another assignment of error alleged by the appellants in this instance deals with
the trial court's refusal to admit a certain witness presented by the defense. The court
took this stand for the reason that this witness had been present during the hearing
notwithstanding the court's order that all witnesses leave the court room. Under such
circumstances it lies within the court's discretion to admit or reject the testimony of the
witness. And although we are of opinion that the court below should have admitted the
testimony of this witness, especially when he stated that he did not hear what the other
witnesses testi ed, yet there is nothing to show that this error has affected the
appellants' defense. There is nothing to show that this witness would have testi ed if
admitted, and so it cannot be held that his failure to testify has materially affected the
appellants' defense.
The appellants also assign as an error the fact that the trial court failed to require
the scal to exhibit the testimony given by the witnesses during the preliminary
investigation conducted by the justice of the peace. But the only effect of this failure
was to entitle the defense to adduce secondary evidence touching the testimony of
said witnesses, for the purpose of attacking their veracity, should they have been
presented as witnesses during the trial.
Neither did the trial court commit an error in refusing the defense an extension of
time to present Doctor Feliciano, for this is a matter wholly within the court's discretion,
the abuse whereof has not been shown, especially in view of the fact that it was not
informed of the nature of this witness's testimony.
Wherefore, the judgment appealed from is af rmed, with costs against the
appellants. So ordered.
Street, Villamor, Ostrand, Romualdez, and Villa-Real, JJ., concur.
Johns, J., I dissent.

Plaintiff-Appellee Vs Vs Defendants-Appellants Paulino Gullas, Attorney-General Jaranilla

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Plaintiff-Appellee Vs Vs Defendants-Appellants Paulino Gullas, Attorney-General Jaranilla

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Plaintiff-Appellee Vs Vs Defendants-Appellants Paulino Gullas, Attorney-General Jaranilla

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

EN BANC

[G.R. Nos. 32394, 32395. September 5, 1930.]

THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS , plaintiff-appellee, vs .

Paulino Gullas, for appellants.

1. CRIMINAL PROCEDURE; JUDICIAL DISCRETION; EXCLUSION OF

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2017 cdasiaonline.com

You might also like