THE
UNITED STATES, plaintiff and appellee, vs. MIGUEL CATIMBANG ET AL., defendants,
MIGUEL CATIMBANG and PEDRO MALALUAN, appellants
G.R. No
11750 | Nov. 24, 1916
FACTS:
On the night of Nov. 30, 1914, 2 cows with their calves disappeared. The said cows were tied close by the houses of their owners. The rope which was used to tie the cows have disappeared along with the animal. After a fruitless search for the stolen animals, the owners reported their loss to the police.
While looking for the animals, one of the owners, Antonino Templo, met the accused Miguel Catimbang, told him of his loss, and asked him to aid in the search. Catimbang promised to do so, and the next day in reply to an inquiry as to whether he had seen the animals, he asked Templo for P40 as ransom (rescate) for the return of his property, warning him that if he did not pay the money demanded of him, he would lose the animals altogether.
Templo did not have the money demanded of him and failed to recover the animals. Soon thereafter Miguel Catimbang was arrested, and having been set at liberty on bail, went to Templo's house and promised to return Templo's animals if he would aid him to escape from the criminal charges pending against him. Templo agreed, and sent two men to Catimbang's house to get the animals. Catimbang gave them the calf which had been stolen from Templo but despite his promises did not turn over the cow.
Two brothers, name Lirit, testified that on the Dec. 9, 1914, the appellants, together with a 3rd unknown persons, approached them and asked them to take care of 2 cows and their calves for a few days, until their owners should ransom them. The brothers declined the offer and the party went away, taking the animals with them.
Accused Miguel Catimbang, testified on his own
behalf and denied the testimony of the Lirit brothers in so far as it tended to
show that he had ever been in possession of the animals or had any guilty
knowledge of the theft with which he was charged.
The trial judge, who saw and heard the
witnesses testify, accepted as true the testimony of the witnesses for the
prosecution, and declined to give any credence to the denials of Catimbang
testifying in his own behalf.
ISSUE:
Whether or not there has been a violation of
the rights of the accused on the course of the trial
RULING:
It has sometimes been said that the unexplained possession of stolen property creates a presumption of law that the possessor committed the larceny, and casts the burden of proving the innocent character of the possession upon the accused; and thus stated, it must be admitted that there is some force in counsel's contention that such a ruling may have the effect, in some instances, of destroying the right of the accused to be exempt from testifying against himself, and of declining to testify without having that fact used against him.
According to the modern view, however,
convictions in cases of this kind are not sustained upon a presumption of law
as to the guilt of the accused. The conviction rests wholly upon an inference
of fact as to the guilt of the accused. If as a matter of probability and
reasoning based on the fact of possession of the stolen goods, taken in
connection with the other evidence, it may fairly be concluded beyond a
reasonable doubt that the accused is guilty of the theft, judgment of
conviction may properly be entered. The conviction rests upon the evidence
introduced by the prosecution—not upon the refusal or failure of the accused to
testify.
The inference of guilt is one of fact and rests upon the common experience of men. But the experience of men has taught them that an apparently guilty possession may be explained so as to rebut such an inference and an accused person may therefore put witnesses on the stand or go on the witness stand himself to explain his possession, and any reasonable explanation of his possession, inconsistent with his guilty connection with the commission of the crime, will rebut the inference as to his guilt which the prosecution seeks to have drawn from his guilty possession of the stolen goods.
It is in this sense that it is sometimes said that the unexplained possession of recently stolen goods will sustain a conviction of the crime of larceny. When the prosecution closes its case there must be enough evidence in the record to establish the guilt of the accused if nothing further appears; and proof of the possession of recently stolen goods taken together with proof of the commission of the theft, may be and generally will be sufficient to establish the guilt of the accused, if there is nothing in the record to raise a doubt as to the guilty character of the possession, though there is no presumption of law to that effect
It then rests with the accused to rebut the
inference of fact as to his guilt arising from his possession of the stolen
goods by the submission of evidence tending to prove that his possession of the
stolen goods was not inconsistent with his innocence of the crime of larceny.
But this is not to compel him to give evidence against himself. It is merely to
give him the opportunity which is given the defendant in all criminal cases, to
submit evidence in his own behalf after the prosecution has introduced evidence
sufficient to sustain a conviction unless that evidence is rebutted or
satisfactorily explained.
Comments
Post a Comment