Location via proxy:   [ UP ]  
[Report a bug]   [Manage cookies]                
Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 579 views

    People Vs Prieto Digest

    Uploaded by

    LawardCaps
    The appellant was prosecuted for treason on 7 counts and pleaded guilty to counts 1, 2, 3 and 7. For count 4, the prosecution presented 2 witnesses but their statements did not coincide on any details of the alleged crime. As their testimonies did not corroborate each other as required by the two-witness rule for treason cases, the appellant was found to be not guilty of count 4. However, the appellant was still found guilty on counts 1, 2, 3 and 7. The penalty was modified from death to reclusion perpetua based on the presence of aggravating and mitigating circumstances.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    People Vs Prieto Digest

    Uploaded by

    LawardCaps
    579 views2 pages
    The appellant was prosecuted for treason on 7 counts and pleaded guilty to counts 1, 2, 3 and 7. For count 4, the prosecution presented 2 witnesses but their statements did not coincide on any details of the alleged crime. As their testimonies did not corroborate each other as required by the two-witness rule for treason cases, the appellant was found to be not guilty of count 4. However, the appellant was still found guilty on counts 1, 2, 3 and 7. The penalty was modified from death to reclusion perpetua based on the presence of aggravating and mitigating circumstances.

    Original Title

    People vs Prieto digest

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    The appellant was prosecuted for treason on 7 counts and pleaded guilty to counts 1, 2, 3 and 7. For count 4, the prosecution presented 2 witnesses but their statements did not coincide on any details of the alleged crime. As their testimonies did not corroborate each other as required by the two-witness rule for treason cases, the appellant was found to be not guilty of count 4. However, the appellant was still found guilty on counts 1, 2, 3 and 7. The penalty was modified from death to reclusion perpetua based on the presence of aggravating and mitigating circumstances.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    579 views2 pages

    People Vs Prieto Digest

    Uploaded by

    LawardCaps
    The appellant was prosecuted for treason on 7 counts and pleaded guilty to counts 1, 2, 3 and 7. For count 4, the prosecution presented 2 witnesses but their statements did not coincide on any details of the alleged crime. As their testimonies did not corroborate each other as required by the two-witness rule for treason cases, the appellant was found to be not guilty of count 4. However, the appellant was still found guilty on counts 1, 2, 3 and 7. The penalty was modified from death to reclusion perpetua based on the presence of aggravating and mitigating circumstances.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    You are on page 1of 2

    [G.R. No. L-399. January 29, 1948.

    THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. EDUARDO


    PRIETO (alias EDDIE VALENCIA), defendant-appellant.

    Facts:

     The appellant was prosecuted in the People's Court for treason on 7


    counts. After pleading not guilty he entered a plea of guilty to counts
    1, 2, 3 and 7, and maintained the original plea as to counts 4, 5 and
    6. The special prosecutor introduced evidence only on count 4,
    stating with reference to counts 5 and 6 that he did not have
    sufficient evidence to sustain them. The defendant was found guilty
    on count 4 as well as counts 1, 2, 3 and 7 and was sentenced to
    death and to pay a fine of P20,000.
     Two witnesses gave evidence on count 4 but their statements do
    not coincide on any single detail. Juanito Albaño, the first witness,
    testified that in March, 1945, the accused with other Filipino
    undercovers and Japanese soldiers caught an American aviator and
    had the witness carry the American to town on a sled pulled by a
    carabao; that on the way, the accused walked behind the sled and
    asked the prisoner if the sled was faster than the airplane; that the
    American was taken to the Kempetai headquarters, after which he
    did not know what happened to the flier. Valentin Cuison, the next
    witness, testified that one day in March, 1945, he saw the accused
    following an American whose hands were tied; that the accused
    struck the flier with a piece of rope; that with the American and the
    accused were Japanese and other Filipinos.
     This evidence does not satisfy the two-witness principle. The two
    witnesses failed to corroborate each other not only on the whole
    overt act but on any part of it.
     Under the Philippine treason law and under the United States
    constitution defining treason, after which the former was patterned,
    there must concur both adherence to the enemy and giving him aid
    and comfort. One without the other does not make treason.
     It is where murder or physical injuries are charged as overt acts of
    treason that they cannot be regarded separately under their general
    denomination.
      However, the brutality with which the killing or physical injuries were
    carried out may be taken as an aggravating circumstance. Thus, the
    use of torture and other atrocities on the victims instead of the usual
    and less painful method of execution will be taken into account to
    increase the penalty under the provision of article 14, paragraph 21,
    of the Revised Penal Code, since they, as in this case, augmented
    the sufferings of the offended parties unnecessarily to the
    attainment of the criminal objective.

    Issue:

    Whether or Not, The appellant is not guilty of treason on the 4th count.

    Ruling:

    No. The appellant Prieto did not treason because of the Two-witness
    rule. Under the two-witness principle, it is necessary that the two witnesses
    corroborate each other not only on the whole overt act but on any part of it.
    Whereas the two witness statement referred to two separate occasion and not
    the particular occasion that the appellant is being litigated.
    The appellant was also defended by an incompetent counsel in
    lower court. We do not discern in the record any indication that the
    former counsel did not conduct the defense to the best of his ability. If
    Attorney Carin did his best as a sworn member of the bar, as the present
    attorney admits, that was enough; his sentiments did not cut any
    influence in the result of the case and did not imperil the rights of the
    appellant.
    In conclusion, we find the defendant not guilty of count 4 and guilty of
    treason as charged in counts 1, 2, 3 and 7. There being an aggravating
    circumstance and a mitigating circumstance, the penalty to be imposed
    is reclusion perpetua. The judgment of the lower court will be modified in this
    respect accordingly. In all other particulars, the same will be affirmed. It is so
    ordered, with costs of this instance against the appellant.

    You might also like