Welcome to Scribd, the world's digital library. Read, publish, and share books and documents. See more
Standard view
Full view
of .
Save to My Library
Look up keyword
Like this
0 of .
Results for:
No results containing your search query
P. 1
US vs Lumampao

US vs Lumampao

Ratings: (0)|Views: 19 |Likes:
Published by manilatabajonda

More info:

Published by: manilatabajonda on Jan 31, 2010
Copyright:Attribution Non-commercial


Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.
download as DOC, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
See more
See less





Republic of the Philippines
EN BANCG.R. No. 6692 September 2, 1911THE UNITED STATES,
 Jalandoni & Lozano, for appellant. Acting Attorney-General Harvey, for appellee.
 This is an appeal from a judgment of the Court of First Instance of the Province of Iloilo, the Hon. J. S. Powell presiding, convicting thedefendant of the crime of perjury and sentencing him to two yearsof imprisonment and to pay the costs of the action. The prosecution of this case arises from the testimony given by theaccused in the case of 
U. S. vs. Quebengco
(18 Phil. Rep., 47), whichwas a prosecution for the seduction of a young lady by thedefendant, brought about by a fictitious marriage ceremonybetween them performed by a brother of the defendant on the 27thday of October, 1909. In that action the accused in the present casetestified as a witness that he was in company with the brother of  Jose Quebengco, who performed the marriage ceremony proved inthe seduction case, during the whole day of the 27th of October, theday on which the said marriage ceremony took place, and that thesaid marriage ceremony on said day.It having been ascertained that the testimony given by the accusedas a witness in behalf of the defendant in the seduction case wasfalse, the information in this case was presented against him and hewas prosecuted thereunder. The guilt of the defendant is proved overwhelmingly. He himself,testifying as witness in his own behalf, substantially admits thefalsity of his previous testimony. Every essential element of perjuryis present.Counsel for the appellant alleges two errors. The first one is that the judge erred in denying the application of the accused that he betried before another court by reason of an alleged prejudice againstthe defendant on the part of the trial court. The only groundpresented by the defendant for the alleged prejudice is the fact that

You're Reading a Free Preview

/*********** DO NOT ALTER ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE ! ************/ var s_code=s.t();if(s_code)document.write(s_code)//-->