You're currently signed in as:
User
Add TAGS to your cases to easily locate them or to build your SYLLABUS.
Please SIGN IN to use this feature.
https://www.lawyerly.ph/juris/view/c691?user=fbGU2WFpmaitMVEVGZ2lBVW5xZ2RVdz09
[US v. BONIFACIO POBRE](https://www.lawyerly.ph/juris/view/c691?user=fbGU2WFpmaitMVEVGZ2lBVW5xZ2RVdz09)
{case:c691}
Highlight text as FACTS, ISSUES, RULING, PRINCIPLES to generate case DIGESTS and REVIEWERS.
Please LOGIN use this feature.
Show printable version with highlights

[ GR No. 4537, Aug 01, 1908 ]

US v. BONIFACIO POBRE +

DECISION

11 Phil. 51

[ G.R. No. 4537, August 01, 1908 ]

THE UNITED STATES, PLAINTIFF AND APPELLEE, VS. BONIFACIO POBRE, DEFENDANT AND APPELLANT.

D E C I S I O N

TORRES, J.:

On the 27th of July, 1907, Bonifacio Pobre, a councilor of the municipality of Paoay, was charged by the provincial  fiscal  of Ilocos Norte  with  having violated  Act No. 1461 of the Philippine Commission, inasmuch as, on and prior to the 26th of said month and year, the accused had in his house situated in said town of Paoay, in the above-named province, a certain  quantity of opium and an instrument for using the same, he not being one  of those authorized by the law to keep or be in possession of said drug.

Proceedings were instituted and at the trial, upon the accused being informed of  the complaint, he pleaded not guilty; however, before any evidence was adduced the fiscal and the counsel for the accused  agreed that the internal revenue agent and his companions would testify  confirming the complaint in all  its parts; that  the witnesses of the defense would also declare that the opium referred to in the complaint  was ashes (carbon) of the said  drug, and that if the said article  was found  in  the house of the accused it was because the Chinaman Quin-quio, who is authorized to keep it, had left it there; that the neighbors  of the accused would likewise declare that he was not in the habit of smoking opium; and in view  thereof, the parties asked that judgment be entered.  This was done by the judge on the 7th of December, sentencing the accused, to pay a fine of P50  and the costs, and ordering the confiscation of the articles.  From said judgment the accused has appealed.

The agreement entered into between the fiscal of Ilocos Norte and the counsel for the defendant refers to facts which favor the defense and to others connected with the prosecution; no evidence whatever was adduced, nor was the testimony of the witnesses mentioned in the agreement taken.  This is a practice which is not authorized and defeats the purpose of the criminal law, being an open violation of the rules of criminal procedure, and particularly of the  provisions of section 32 of  General Orders, No. 58.

Therefore, in view of the decision of this court in the case of  U. S. vs. Donato (9 Phil. Rep., 701) for robbery en cuadrilla, and considering the  judgment appealed from as null  and void, the same is set aside.  Let the case be remanded to the court from whence it came for a new trial  which shall be held in strict accordance with  the provisions or the law of procedure.  So ordered.

Arellano, C. J., Mapa, Carson, Willard, and Tracey, JJ., concur.

tags