Case Digest (G.R. No. L-3422)
Facts:
The United States v. Manuel Samonte, G.R. No. 3422, August 03, 1907, the Supreme Court, Torres, J., writing for the Court. The plaintiff-appellee was the United States; the defendant-appellant was Manuel Samonte.On January 9, 1906 an information was filed in the Court of First Instance of Manila charging Samonte with robbery committed on December 30, 1905, in Calle Luna, Manila, alleging that by violence and intimidation he took P38 from Nicolasa Sumbingco, and setting out several aggravating circumstances. Trial proceeded in the Court of First Instance, which found the acts and the accused’s culpability fully established and on March 26 sentenced Samonte to six years, ten months and one day of presidio mayor, accessory penalties under Article 57 of the Penal Code, restitution of the money (less one cent), no subsidiary imprisonment, and costs. Samonte appealed.
At trial the prosecution established that between 9 and 10 p.m. Nicolasa, age 18, returning from the Pasay race track with the elderly Feliciano Tolentino carrying a lamp, was accosted near the house of an American, G. A. Lohr, where Samonte allegedly snatched a handkerchief containing P38. Nicolasa and Tolentino pursued; Nicolasa seized the thief by his shirt but was pushed and fell; the thief ran off. Lohr, looking from his window, saw a struggle and the subsequent pursuit; the accused’s hat and a one-cent coin were later found at the scene; the stolen money was counted and temporarily deposited with Apolonia Paguio and its existence was confirmed.
Samonte testified he had been courting Nicolasa, claimed she slapped him and that he fled after losing his hat; he presented friends and his mother as witnesses who corroborated alternative versions. The trial court, however, found prosecution witnesses credible, noted corroborating physical evidence and suspicious conduct (the mother’s attempt to settle and the accused’s disappearance), and rejected the defense accounts as contrived. The court held the act within case No. 5 of Article 503 of the Penal Code (robbery by force and violence) and found nocturnity present as an aggravating circumstance, but rejected application of aggravating circumstances Nos. 1 and 20 of Article 10. The Court of First Instance’s judgment was affirmed by the Supreme Court, with Arel...(Pro-only)
Issues:
- Whether the evidence was sufficient to sustain Samonte’s conviction for robbery beyond reasonable doubt.
- Whether the aggravating circumstances relied upon by the trial court (specifically nocturnity and aggravating circumstances Nos. 1 and 20 of Article 10 of the Penal Code) were properly applied and whether...(Pro-only)
Ruling:
- (Pro-only)
Ratio:
- (Pro-only)
Doctrine:
- (Pro-only)