Case Digest (G.R. No. 21884)
Facts:
The People of the Philippine Islands v. Takeo Tabuche et al., G.R. No. 21884, July 31, 1924, the Supreme Court En Banc, Villamor, J., writing for the Court. The appellants are Taijo Yokimiso and Kumekichi Saito, tried with co-defendant Takeo Tabuche (a fugitive) for robbery with homicide in the Court of First Instance of Manila before Judge Nepomuceno.The information charged that on the night of 22–23 September 1923 the three Japanese men, taking an automobile driven by Yokimiso, invited the deceased Kiro Zuki Sato to ride with them, proceeded to Caloocan, and there violently killed Sato and took his watch and money. On 24 September Lieutenant Antonio Xerez Burgos found Sato’s body in Caloocan; Dr. Villegas’ autopsy (Exhibits A and O) showed twenty-seven wounds, four of which were mortal. Blood-stained clothing, a cane, a coat, a watch and other articles were recovered in and about the garage and trunks connected with the accused.
At the scene of arrest and thereafter the police took extrajudicial declarations from the appellants (Exhibits C and N) sworn before Colonel Dominguez and interpreted by a Japanese interpreter; these statements recounted the events, admitted the presence of the accused at the killing, the taking of money and the transfer of a watch, and described preparation/sharpening of a file-knife (Exhibit D). Witnesses Maria Castro, Felisa Felipe and Dequinosoki Tanaka identified the accused and corroborated portions of the narrative; clothes stained with blood and part of the money were found in the accused’s possession.
After trial the Court of First Instance, on December 19, 1923, convicted Yokimiso and Saito of robbery with homicide under article 503, case No. 1, of the Penal Code, found aggravating circumstances (premeditation, treachery, nocturnity) offset in part by the mitigating circumstance in article 11 as amended by Act No. 2142, and sentenced each to cadena perpetua with accessory penalties, ordered return of the watch and money, indemnity of P1,000 and costs. The appellants appealed to the Supreme Court, assigning, inter alia, erroneous admission of their extrajudicial confessions and of Colonel Dominguez’s...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Were the appellants’ extrajudicial declarations (Exhibits C and N) and the testimony of Colonel Dominguez erroneously admitted in evidence?
- Was the confession of one accused admissible against his co-accused when the accused were tried jointly and the crime was not shown to be the result of a conspiracy?
- Did the trial court err in allowing the prosecuting attorney to introduce additional evidence after the prosecution had rested?
- Was the evidence, exclusive of any improperly admitted confession, sufficient to ...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)