Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • G. R. No. 1423, December 29, 1903

    Uploaded by

    JB Andes
    33 views2 pages
    This document is a Supreme Court decision from the Philippines from 1903 regarding an appeal of a case where a man was accused of arson. The Court of First Instance had acquitted the defendant due to lack of direct evidence linking him to the crime. The Supreme Court affirmed the lower court's decision, agreeing the evidence was circumstantial. However, the Supreme Court also stated that in the future, cases should not be dismissed until both sides have presented all evidence, to avoid issues if the case was remanded for a new trial or the higher court disagreed with the lower court's judgment.

    Original Description:

    Original Title

    923

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    This document is a Supreme Court decision from the Philippines from 1903 regarding an appeal of a case where a man was accused of arson. The Court of First Instance had acquitted the defendant due to lack of direct evidence linking him to the crime. The Supreme Court affirmed the lower court's decision, agreeing the evidence was circumstantial. However, the Supreme Court also stated that in the future, cases should not be dismissed until both sides have presented all evidence, to avoid issues if the case was remanded for a new trial or the higher court disagreed with the lower court's judgment.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    33 views2 pages

    G. R. No. 1423, December 29, 1903

    Uploaded by

    JB Andes
    This document is a Supreme Court decision from the Philippines from 1903 regarding an appeal of a case where a man was accused of arson. The Court of First Instance had acquitted the defendant due to lack of direct evidence linking him to the crime. The Supreme Court affirmed the lower court's decision, agreeing the evidence was circumstantial. However, the Supreme Court also stated that in the future, cases should not be dismissed until both sides have presented all evidence, to avoid issues if the case was remanded for a new trial or the higher court disagreed with the lower court's judgment.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 2

    3 Phil.

    116

    [ G. R. No. 1423, December 29, 1903 ]

    THE UNITED STATES, COMPLAINANT AND APPELLANT, VS.


    EDUARDO ABAROA, DEFENDANT AND APPELLEE.
    DECISION

    MCDONOUGH, J.:
    This  is  an  appeal from the  judgment  of the Court  of First Instance of the Province of La
    Union, acquitting the defendant  on a charge of incendio (arson), alleged to have been
    committed by him on the night of March 1, 1903,  in San Fernando de  la Union.   The
    camarin of one Lucino Almeida Chan Tanco, otherwise called  Tana,  was burned on that
    night.   It was claimed that Eduardo Abaroa Chan-Em, the accused here, had set fire to the
    building, and he was arrested  and  put upon  trial at San  Fernando de  la Union on June 3,
    1903.
    After eleven witnesses had been sworn and had testified in behalf of the prosecution, and 47
    pages of testimony taken, the  court discharged the accused for the reason that the prosecution
    had not made out a case against him.
    It was proved  satisfactorily  that  the building and  its contents, a stock of goods, valued
    altogether at about 60,000 pesos, Mexican currency, were destroyed by fire, but the testimony
    adduced to show that the accused set the building on fire was not direct and positive,  but 
    rather of a circumstantial and contradictory  nature, and which, apparently, was not strong
    enough to convince  the learned judge who tried the case of the guilt of the accused.
    After carefully reading the evidence and considering its bearing and weight, we have
    concluded that the judgment of the Court of First Instance should be affirmed.
    We do not,  however, approve of the practice adopted of dismissing  the case, on  motion of
    the  attorney for the accused, when the fiscal announced that he had no more testimony to
    offer.
    Such practice should not be followed for the  reasons (1) if this court should not agree with 
    the conclusion reached by the  court below it would be authorized to reverse the judgment
    and enter judgment convicting the accused upon the facts proved by the prosecution, and thus
    depriving the accused of making a defense below, if he had a defense, and (2) if this  court, 
    on disapproval of the judgment below, should  order  a new trial the result  would be that the
    prosecution would be obliged to place the defendant  on trial twice, when all the evidence
    could have been obtained in one trial; and the defendant would have the benefit of delay and
    the  possible death or disappearance of witnesses for the prosecution.
    We are of opinion, therefore, that the better practice is to require the defendant to make his
    defense, if he desires to offer evidence in his own behalf, and not to dismiss the case,  on
    motion, until both parties have presented all their evidence.
    The judgment below is affirmed with the costs of both
    instances de oficio.
    Arellano, C. J., Torres, Cooper, Willard, and Mapa, JJ., concur.
    Johnson, J.: I concur in the result.

    You might also like