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

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 50 views

    Torres, J.:: Syllabus

    Uploaded by

    VanityHugh
    1) A lieutenant failed to investigate a reported arson crime, which could make him guilty of "prevaricacion" or neglect of duties. However, he was charged as an accessory to the arson crime instead. 2) For someone to be convicted as an accessory, the principal must be convicted. But the alleged arsonist was acquitted due to lack of evidence proving the fire was intentional rather than accidental. 3) Therefore, since the alleged arsonist was acquitted, the lieutenant cannot be convicted as an accessory either and the court acquits the lieutenant of all charges.

    Copyright:

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

    Torres, J.:: Syllabus

    Uploaded by

    VanityHugh
    50 views3 pages
    1) A lieutenant failed to investigate a reported arson crime, which could make him guilty of "prevaricacion" or neglect of duties. However, he was charged as an accessory to the arson crime instead. 2) For someone to be convicted as an accessory, the principal must be convicted. But the alleged arsonist was acquitted due to lack of evidence proving the fire was intentional rather than accidental. 3) Therefore, since the alleged arsonist was acquitted, the lieutenant cannot be convicted as an accessory either and the court acquits the lieutenant of all charges.

    Original Title

    4.-US-v.-Mendoza.Crim

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    1) A lieutenant failed to investigate a reported arson crime, which could make him guilty of "prevaricacion" or neglect of duties. However, he was charged as an accessory to the arson crime instead. 2) For someone to be convicted as an accessory, the principal must be convicted. But the alleged arsonist was acquitted due to lack of evidence proving the fire was intentional rather than accidental. 3) Therefore, since the alleged arsonist was acquitted, the lieutenant cannot be convicted as an accessory either and the court acquits the lieutenant of all charges.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    50 views3 pages

    Torres, J.:: Syllabus

    Uploaded by

    VanityHugh
    1) A lieutenant failed to investigate a reported arson crime, which could make him guilty of "prevaricacion" or neglect of duties. However, he was charged as an accessory to the arson crime instead. 2) For someone to be convicted as an accessory, the principal must be convicted. But the alleged arsonist was acquitted due to lack of evidence proving the fire was intentional rather than accidental. 3) Therefore, since the alleged arsonist was acquitted, the lieutenant cannot be convicted as an accessory either and the court acquits the lieutenant of all charges.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 3

    23 Phil.

    194
    SYLLABUS

    1. PUBLIC OFFICIAL; FAILURE TO MOVE PROSECUTION OF CRIME. — A lieutenant of barrio who neglects his
    duty and fails to move the prosecution of, and punishment for, a crime of arson, of the commission of which
    he is informed, would, in case the alleged crime were afterwards duly proven, be guilty of "prevaricacion"
    under article 355 of the Penal Code, but not of concealment of the crime of arson. 

    2. ID.; ACCESSORIES; CRIMINAL RESPONSIBILITY. — The responsibility of the accessory after the fact is
    subordinate to that of the principal, because the accessory’s participation is subsequent to the commission
    of the offense and his guilty is very directly related to that of the principal. 

    3. ID.; ID. — When a prosecution is instituted against a person charged with crime, if the charge is not
    proven or the facts shown do not constitute a crime, there is no ground for holding any person guilty either
    as principal or as accessory. 

    DECISION

    TORRES, J.  :

    Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of conviction rendered in this case by the Honorable Julio
    Llorente, judge. 

    TORRES, J.:
    Appeal by the defendant from  a judgment of conviction rendered  in this
    case by  the Honorable  Julio Llorente, judge.

    FACTS:
    About 8 o'clock in the evening of August 1, 1910, Bernabe Mangunay,
    mounted on a carabao, approached the house of Mateo del Rosario, 
    situated in the barrio of Apulid, of the pueblo of Paniqui, Tarlac,  to ask for
    something to eat.  As he was then carrying  a papaya firebrand and got too
    close to the house,  the eaves  thereof caught fire  and its nipa roof
    immediately started to burn, a large part of it being consumed.  Thereupon
    Silveria Marcoleta, wife of the owner of the house, Rosario,  who  was not in
    at the time but at a neighbor's, called out for help and immediately left the
    house to escape from the fire, taking her two children and little brother
    with her.  Owing to the prompt arrival of the  husband and several
    neighbors, the fire was put out before it had burned the whole house.
    On the following day the owner of the house, Mateo del Rosario, reported
    the occurrence to  Vicente  Mendoza, the lieutenant of  the aforesaid barrio, 
    and accused Bernabe Mangunay of starting the fire.  Mendoza thereupon
    ordered the junior  lieutenant, Candido  Yabut,  to  summon the accused. 
    But when the latter appeared, said Mendoza took no action whatever, nor
    did he even report the facts to the proper higher authority, but, on the
    contrary, permitted the incendiary to return home.
    For the foregoing reasons, and in view of the preliminary investigations
    made by the justice  of the peace of Paniqui, the provincial fiscal, on
    September 5, 1910, filed an information in the Court of  First Instance of 
    Tarlac, charging Vicente Mendoza as  accessory after  the fact in the crime
    of arson.  After due trial, judgment  was. rendered on May 22, 1911,
    whereby the defendant was sentenced to the penalty  of two years four 
    months and one  day  of presidio correccional, to the accessories, with
    allowance of one-half of the  time of his detention,  and to payment of the
    costs; from which judgment he appealed.
    Had the accused barrio-lieutenant incurred  responsibility by his  conduct,
    he should have been charged with the crime of "prevaricacion"  under
    article 355 of  the  Penal  Code, for neglect of the duties of his office by
    maliciously failing to move the prosecution and punishment of the
    delinquent.
    However, the present case was instituted through an information  for 
    concealment of crime, and  as it has  been proved  that the alleged
    incendiary,  Bernabe  Mangunay, was acquitted for lack of  evidence, by
    judgment rendered in Case No. 544 prosecuted against him in  the same
    court of  Tarlac, so it remains  to be determined whether, notwithstanding
    the  acquittal of the  principal actor in the crime, said complaint for 
    concealment can  be maintained, and the alleged accessory after the fact
    convicted.
    The responsibility of the accessory after  the fact is subordinate to that of
    the principal in a crime, because the accessory's participation therein is 
    subsequent to its  commission, and his guilt is very directly  related to the
    prin- cipal  delinquent in the punishable act; for if the facts alleged are not
    proven in the prosecution instituted, or do not constitute a crime, no legal
    grounds exist for convicting a defendant as an  accessory after  the  fact  of a
    crime not perpetrated or of  parties not guilty.  (U. S. vs. Abison, 3 Phil. 
    Rep., 191.)
    In the case at bar there  are indications that the  fire was accidental and, if
    so, the acquittal of the accused in the other case was  perhaps due to the
    lack of proof of his  guilt as an  incendiary and to the fact that  the  acts 
    charged do not constitute a crime.   Therefore, upon  this hypothesis, and
    because the alleged incendiary was acquitted, it is neither proper nor
    possible to convict the  defendant, Mendoza, as accessory after the fact, of
    Bernabe Mangunay, who was acquitted of the said crime of arson.
    For the foregoing reasons, with reversal of the judgment appealed  from, it 
    is  proper to acquit, as  we  do hereby, Vicente Mendoza, the lieutenant of
    the barrio of Apulid, Paniqui, with the costs of both instances de  oficio.
    Arellano, C. J., Mapa, Johnson,  Carson,  and Trent, JJ., concur.

    You might also like