THE UNITED STATES, plaintiff-appellee,
vs.
BLAS MORO, defendant-appellant.
Republic of the Philippines
Supreme Court
Manila
En Banc
G.R. No. L-5566
15 February 1910
Nicolas Capistrano and M. G. Gavieres for appellant.
Attorney-General Villamor for appellee.
CARSON, J.:
The guilt of the accused of the crime of arson of which he was convicted is conclusively established by the testimony of the witnesses for the prosecution, if that testimony be worthy of belief. There are certain matters in the record which tend to disclose the possibility that these witnesses may have been procured to testify falsely by the complaining witness, a Chinese, whose house was burned, but there is nothing in the record upon which this court could base a finding to that effect or that the testimony of these witnesses is in fact untrue. The court below must have been fully aware of the possibility of the existence of a conspiracy between the complaining witness and others to establish the theory of the prosecution, that the defendant, a mere boy, burned the building of the complaining witness at the instigation of another Chinese, an enemy of the Chinese whose building was destroyed, and yet the trial judge was of opinion, after hearing these witnesses testify, that their testimony was worthy of belief, and established the guilt of the accused beyond a reasonable doubt. We can not say that the record does not sustain the finding of fact by the trial judge, and we find no errors in the proceedings prejudicial to the rights of the accused.
The trial court in imposing the penalty took into consideration the race and lack of mental and moral instruction of the accused as an extenuating circumstances, under the provisions of article 11 of the Penal Code, for the purpose of compensating the aggravating circumstance of nocturnity. The Attorney-General, in his brief upon appeal, contends that the crime being one “against property,” the convict should not be given the benefit of the provisions of article 11, and supports his contention by citing the decisions of this court in the cases of The United States vs. Villanueva (9 Phil. Rep., 94), The United States vs. Pascual (9 Phil. Rep., 491), and The United States vs. Cortes (12 Phil. Rep., 309); but while it is true that this court has uniformly declined to apply the provisions of article 11 so as to secure to a convict the benefit of the extenuating circumstance of race in cases of simple robbery, and generally in cases of robbery, theft, and estafa, so that it may be said that as a general rule the provisions of this article should not be applied in cases of “crimes against property” of this class, yet the rule should not be extended further, and in each case where the defendant has been convicted of one of the many other classes of crimes against property, it is duty of the court, in the exercise of its sound discretion, to apply or to refrain from the application of the provisions of this article with due regard to the particular circumstances of the case under consideration.
The judgment of conviction and the sentence imposed by the trial court should be affirmed, with the costs of this instance against the appellant. So ordered.
Arellano, C.J., Torres, Mapa, Moreland and Elliott, JJ., concur.
TrackBack URI for this entry
Show/hide comment form
