Case Digest (G.R. No. 13715)
Facts:
The United States v. Felixberto Ventura and Domingo Vicente, G.R. No. 13715, January 22, 1919, the Supreme Court En Banc, Torres, J., writing for the Court. The plaintiff-appellee was the United States (through the provincial fiscal); the defendants were Felixberto Ventura, Domingo Vicente, Ramon Carcha, and Pio Apostol. Counsel for Ventura and Vicente appealed their convictions to the Supreme Court.An information for robbery was filed in the Court of First Instance of Pangasinan. On November 16, 1917, the trial court convicted Felixberto Ventura and Domingo Vicente, sentencing each to three years, six months, and twenty-one days of presidio correctional, accessory penalties, a joint and several indemnity of P67 to the offended party Calixto Dizon (with subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency), and each to pay one-fourth of the costs. Proceedings against Pio Apostol were dismissed (with one-fourth of the costs de officii), while Ramon Carcha, who pleaded guilty and was convicted, received a lighter sentence (two years, eleven months, and eleven days) and was ordered to return the stolen merchandise or pay indemnity P67 (with subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency) and to pay costs; Carcha did not appeal.
The prosecution's factual narrative, as developed at trial, was that on the night of August 18–19, 1917, the four defendants conferred and, on Ventura’s initiative, proceeded to the vicinity of Calixto Dizon’s house and small ground-floor store in the barrio of Talibao, Calasiao. Apostol and Carcha remained outside as lookouts while Ventura and Vicente made a hole in the bamboo partition of the store, entered and removed goods (matches, soap, and cloth) valued at P67; one of the two who entered gave Apostol a two-peso bill and told him to keep silent, while Carcha fled in fear. Arrests followed: Apostol was arrested and identified the others; Carcha was arrested and confessed. Ventura and Vicente denied participation but, when confronted with Apostol and Carcha, were reproached and later faced testimony from Carcha — who, after conviction, testified that Ventura and Vicente were his companions — corroborating Apostol’s statements.
At trial the court excluded Apostol from the criminal proceeding in order to use him as a witness (in the exercise of the discretion conferred by law), admitted Carcha’s testimony, and found that the store formed a dependency of the inhabited house. The trial court classified the offense as robbery in an inhabited house or a dependency thereof (invoking the last paragraph of Article 508 of the Penal Code) and, finding nocturnity as an...(Pro-only)
Issues:
- Was the trial court’s exclusion of Pio Apostol from the criminal proceedings and the admission of his testimony lawful?
- Did the evidence suffice to convict Felixberto Ventura and Domingo Vicente as coprincipals in the robbery?
- Was the robbery correctly classified as having been committed in an inhabited house or a dependency thereof, thereby justifying imposition of the maximum ...(Pro-only)
Ruling:
- (Pro-only)
Ratio:
- (Pro-only)
Doctrine:
- (Pro-only)