You are on page 1of 8



be sentenced in every case to sttpport the offspring of the
party, i f there be any; but rvi th regard to the
increase of the inclemnity asked for, lve find no cause for
al teri ng the deci si on on that poi nt, because we bel i eve that
the case i nvoked by the Sol i ci tor General i s not i n poi nt
with the case at bar, for that case refers to a multiple rape
committed by four persons against a single offended
while in the present case there is only one offender.
Wherefore, upon modi fi cati on of the deci si on appeal ed
from, the accused i s hereby sentenced to undergo an i nde-
termi nate
penal ty of from ei ght (8) years and one (1) day
of. pri si ,6n maAor to fourteen (14) years, ei ght (8) months
( 1) day of reclusitjn temporal, rvith the accessory
penalties prescribed by larv, to indemnify the offended party
i n the sum of P500, rvi thout. subsi di ary i mpri sonment i n
case of i nsol vency, to support the offspri ng of sai d offended
party, if there be any as a result of the offense, and to pay
the costs.
Torces, Pres. J., and Fel ;i r,,I., concttr.
Judgntent modi fi .ed.
l No.
2300-R. January 19, 19491
In the matter of the testate estate of the deceased Fi l o-
mena Bermoy; EnaonoNCIANA P. on Vntoso,
peti ti oner
and appel l ant, ?/s. Josn V. PuzoN rt {L., opposi tors
and appel l ees.
PnoeA,rB; Norv-CoupLIANcE v/ITE Fonlmr, Ruqursrrns Axxur,s
V/rr,l ; CasE AT Ban.-The attestati on ci ause i n thc i nstant
case has dai l ed, to rnenti rrn that the wi l l to whi ch i t was at-
tached or an,v page thereof had been si gned by the testatri x,
or that s<rmebody el se, under her express request, si gned her
nane, and that she affi xed thereto her
' uhumhmark
i n the
presence of each and every one of the rvi tnesses. ff has al so
fai l ed to menti on that the rvi tnesses si gned sai d rvi l l and every
one of the pages of whi ch i t consi sts i n the presence of each
and of the testa.tri x. Ti re omi ssi on of these two essenti al
facts i ;o the val i tl i ty of the wi l l renders the same nul i and voi d.
( Uy Coque os. Navas L. Si oca, 43 Phi t . , 405; Saf r o os.
Qui nt ana,
48 Phi l . , 506; Gnmban os. Gor echo, 50 Phi l . , 30;
Qui nt o
I f orat a, 54 Phi l . , 481. )
APPtrAL, from a
of the Court of First Instance
of Leyte. Di ez, J.
The facts are stated i n the opi ni on of the court.
Gabino R. Veloso for apirellant.
Joaenci o Borneo for appel l ee.
Rooas, ./..'
Nearly trvo years after the death of Filomena Bermcy,
Jose Puzon, one of her hei rs, fi l ed an appl i cati on for the
admi ni strati on of the estate l eft by her, or to be more
speci fi c, on November 9, 1945, bei ng Speci al Proceedi ngs
No. 16 of the court of F i rst Instance of Leyte, i n whi ch he
hi msel f was appoi nted speci al admi ni styator on 1\{arch
30, 19. 16.
On November 23, 1945, Emerenci ana de Vel oso, another
hei r of the deceased Fi l omena Bermoy, fi l ed an appl i cati on
for the
probate of her so-cal l ed l ast l vi l l and testament,
rvhi ch rvas Speci al Proceecl i ngs No. 48 of the same court.
opposi t i on was f i l ed t o sai d appl i cat i on by Jose Puzon, '
Maxi mi na Puzon, Lourdes Pttzon, Pri mopusa Val enzona,
Il umi nado Val enzona, Cari ci o Val enzona, Sofroni a Val en-
zona, al l eged to be l dbi ti mate hei rs of the deceased. At
t he t ri al of sai d t rvo' cases, t he
part i es ent ered i nt o t he
fol i orvi ng agreement of facts:
1. That Fi l omena Bermoy had al u' ays been resi di ng i n
barri o Cari dad, muni ci pal i ty of Baybay, Leyte, and was
the larvful wiclorv of Benito Valenzona, who dGrd on No-
vemebr 11. 1914 and t hat Fi l omena Bermoy di ed on June
28, 1943 i n sai d barri o;
2. That the coupl e had three chi l dren named Maura Va-
l enzona u' ho di ccl i n 1905, Desi deri o \ / al enzona l ' ho cl i ed on
No' ,' ember, 1916 and Lcopol da Yal enzona;
3. That l {aura Val enzona l eft three chi l dren named
Jose Puzon, Cl i steta and Isabel o Puzon, tl i i s l ast one havi r:g
di ed i n
' 1941,
and l eft fi ve natural chi l dren, al l rni nors,
namel y: Maxi mo, Remedi os, Amada, Boni faci a and Lour-
des, al l surnamed Puzon;
4. That f)esi deri o Val enzona l eft si x l egi ti mate chi l dren,
to l vi t: Pri rnopusa
Cl oti l de, rrhi , di ed cn Ivtay 6, 1945:
I l umi nacl o; Cari ci o; Euf rcni a and Abedesa, al l of l egal age.
Cl oti l de Val enzona l eft threc l egi ti mate chi l dren, al l mi nors,
named Ceci l i a ci c Leorr; Mari a Del l a de Leon and Eufroni o
dc Leon;
5. That Leopol cl a Va.l enzona was fi rst marri ed to Li no
Pefi al oza by
hom sl i e had fi ve chi l d:en named: Cri spi l a
Pefialoza de l\Iiraflor, P:octtlo Pefi.aloza, I\{aria Pefialoza
de Vicencic.,, Lou:des Pefi,aloza de Bibas and Emerenciana
Pei i al oza de Vel oso; and
6 That Leopol da Val enzona contracted a second mar-
ri age rvi th one Peci ro de Veyra, but they had no i ssue.
Both Spoul SS wel .e tahen by the gucrr i l l a forces i n
October, 1943 and \\' ere seen rro more.
The so-cal l ed l ast rr,-i l l and testament of Fi l omeri a Ber' -
fl oy, marhed Exhi bi t B, i n rvhi ch she l vi l l ed ai l her cstate
exclusively in favor of her daughtel Lgqpolda \talenzona,
u' ri tten i n the Vi sayan di al ect and c' om;tcsec' l t,f three pages
i s dated Septenber 2, 1"942 and thumbmarked by her and
si gned by the rvi tnesses Roque Rom, Isai as Bartol i ni anrl
Cami l o Tal am, u' hi l e the attestati on cl attse rt' as si gned by
Cami l o Tal am, Gregori o Del aganar and l \{ateo l \{' i ri l l o.
hfateo l \[ui ' i l l o, ti re notary publ i c x' ]ro prepared t]re so-
cai i ed l ast u' i l l and testament and srgned the sanl e as a
Vol. 46, No. lz
witness, as rvell as Isaias Bprtolini,
another instrumental
wi tness, testi fi ed that the {humbmarks
appeari ng
on the
margines of the first trvo pages
and at the foot oi the will
were affixed by the testatrix Filomena Bermoy inside
room and then brought out by
de veyra who caused
them and others to sign the same as ryitnesses to the effect
that said document
lvas the lag,t. wiil and testament of
Bermoy, rvhen in fac{none
of said witnesses saw
the testatrix
affix her thumbmark
to said last lvill and
Isaias, however,
added that he signed as wit-
ness to a document
de veyra showed him,
to be his appointment
as a<iministrator
of the
estate of the testatrix Filomena
On the other hand, the rvitness
Roque Rom, Gregorio
and camilo Talam testified that they were-sent
for by the testatrix Filomena
Bermoy, a \ryoman
old, whom they had knon'n for a long time; that when all
the persons
callecl to sign the document as witnesses were
around a tabl e i n the l i vi ng room, to wi t: Mateo
Muri l l o, l sai as Bartol i ni ,
Roque Rcm, Gregori o Del aganar
and camilo Talam, the tcstatrix requested
Mateo Murillo
to read sai d Exhi bi t B to her and to al l the wi tnesses; fl rat
after the same had been rearl, and she hauing stated that
said docurrrrrt was her last rvill and testament,
she asked
Rcque Rom to si gn i l i e same for her because she coul Jnot,
see nor rvrite her name, and Roque Rom did so at the
expressed reqr;sgt of said testatrix and at the same time
.signed the same on ail the rrlargirrs of the first two pages
as well as at the foot of the will in her presenee
an.i iir
the prescnce
of all the witne.sses; that aftcr having signcd
her name, the testatrix reque.sted
the notary pubric
Murillo to assist her in aflixing her thumbmark
over her
signature to all the pages
thereof in the presence
of each
and every one of the witnesses,
and thereafter
the wit-
nesses in turn signed said document on the left margins
the first tu'o pages
and at the bottom thereof as ivell
as at the end of the attestaticn
clause in the presence
the testatrix ancl each and every one of the said witnesses.
The w i tness Roque Rom testi fi ert
that rhe spouses
dc veyra anci Leopolda
valenzona were both present
the living room where ilie riocument
was signed by the tes-
tatrix and the rvitnesses,
whereas the other witness
saicl that although Leopolda
was there presen
t at, the tirne of the signing, her husband,
Pedro de veyra, was in another house.
camilo Talam in
turn testified that although said spouses were sometimes
in the living room where the signing took place,
they used to go in a'd out, but rvhen Filorr.n*
said clocument,
de veyra v/as noi
In vi ew of the foregoi ng,
the l ower court concruded:
"En conel usi 6n,
er Juzgado
es de opi ni 6n que
no expresandose
el testamento propi o
ni en ra cr6usura
i . Jt*ti *ami ento
testi gos
han fi rmado el testamento
en presenci a
de Ia testadora y
en Ia de cada uno de ei l os, er testamento
no se ha otorgado
de acuerdo
con l a l ey; y su regal i zaci 6n
debe ser denegada.
"Por l as razones
el Juzgado
deni ega
ra l egari zaci 6n
del t est ament o
Exhf bi t o
8. , ,
The appel l ant
assi gns
but one error,
to wi t:
' ' EI
Inferi or
err6 al denegar
l a l egal i zaci 6n
del testamento
Exhf bi t
B, f undandose
en que
su cr5usura
de at est i guami ent o
certi fi ca que
l os.tes!]sos
ro hayan fi rmado
u., p""rurrci a
de l a testadora
y de cada uno de el l os. ' ,
In discussing
the above-quoted
the attorneys
the appel l ant
rai se trvo questi ons,
to wi t:
"1' El cri teri o
hoy predomi nante
en l a Corte Suprema
es absol u_
tamente l eberal
en cuarto
a ra l egar i zaei 6i
"2. Hay di sposi ci ones
de l as regras
de ros t ri bunares
court s) que
aparent enrent e
pel mi t en
p. rebas-arl ' nde
a f i n de supri r
l as defi ci enci as
ci e una cl 6usul a
de atesi i eu"l i rrto.
The attestati on
cl ause
i n que,l ti on
reaci s:
"' we, the uncersi gned,
rvi tnesses
to thi s l ast rr' l and testanrent
of Fi ro' ena
certi fy
that ti re above menti oned
i s the l ast
wi i i and testament
of Fi romena
*rri .r,
she pubri she.l
made known rn sai d testament,
ancr that- we, i t",e wi t.russes
wi l l si gn
our names hereuncer
i n order to attest to truth that thi s testament
consi st two pages,
and on tLe thi rd page
i ,
attesti "ti on
as wi t_
nesses- and we al so si pSed
our names o' au tbe l eft margi ns
of i l ri s
thi s 2nd da]' of septe-rrl her,
at ba*i o
cari dad,
muni ci pal i ty
of Baybay,
pr.ovi nce
of Lcyte,
phi l i ppi nes.,,
It is contenr^led
by the appellan
t, that
the criter.ion
tai ni ng i n several
deci si ons
of the supreme
court i s ab_
scl utel v l i beral
r,vi fl r respect
to the admi ssi on
of wi l l s to
and to that effect ci ted
creci si ons
of our
honcrabl e
secti on 618 ot cocre cf ci vi l
as far as i t i s
rel evanr,
to the questi on
at i ssue, reads:
' (*
* *
The attestati on
state the rrurnber
of sheets
or paqes
nsed, .pon .vhi ch
the wi n i s vrri tt:n,
uJ' tn"
fact that the
si gned i l i e wi l l and e-.' erj .- page
or caused
other person
to w' te hi s narne, ti "a9i
rri ,
oi recti ,n,
i n ti re presence
of three l vi t' esses,
and the l atter wi t' eJed
and si gned the
wi l l and al l pages
i n the presence
of the testator
and of each
ot hgr . r r
vr vr r e '
From the above_quoted
it may be gathered
t hat t he at t est at i on
shout a
si at e, --i t )
t he n^b",
of sheets
or pages
of u' hi ch
the wi i l consi si s
the fact
that the testator
ilre rviil una *..u
oun. ilrereof,
or caused some oi l rer per.son
to rvri te
hi s narne
under hi s
di recti o' ; (.3)
that the si gni ng
of the rvi l l on
each and every page
by the I.stu-to*
or by sorne-
i ;J
Vol . 46, No. 72
bocl y el se under hi s expressed di recti on shoul d be made i n
presence of three rvi tnesses;
(4) that the three rvi t-
nesses si gned the l vi l l and al l the
pages thereof i n the
presence of the testator and of each other. The attesta-
ti on cl ause of the wi l l , Exhi bi t B, above-quoted, certi fi es
( 1) that the precedi ng document i s the l ast rvi l l and tes-
tament of Fi l omena Bermoy
publ i shed and made known
therei n
i Q)
that the wi tnesses di d si gn thei r names there-
under in order to attest to the truth that said testament
consi sts of two
pages; (3) that on the thi rd
page thereof
appears their attestation as
lvitnesses, to rvhich they affixed
or si gned thei r names and on al l of the l eft margi ns of
the testament on the Znd day of September, 7941, at barrio
cariclad, municipality of Baybay, Province of Leyte, Phil-
i ppi nes.
Sai d attestati on cl ause has fai l ed to menti on that the
testatrix signed the rvill and each and every one of the
pages thereof, or that she had caused her name to be
signed by one of the witnesses and affixed her thumbmark
thereto i rr the presence of each ancl every one of the l v!t-
nesses rvho si gnecl the attestati on cl ause. It has al so fai l ed
to mention that the rvitnesses signed said rvill antl all of the
thc presence of the testatrix and of each and ever;'
one of them.
A close stucry of the cases decided by otlr honorable
Supreme Court on the
question at issue shorvs that if the
attestation clause of a rvill fails to shorv that the will was
signed by the testator on each and every
page thereof, in
presence of the instrumental rvitnesses' and that the
l atfer i n turn si gned the sanre on each and everl '
page i n
presence of ihe testator anC each and ever]' onc of
tirrrr, the will has ah'rays been considered r.ull and void.
It i s truc, hotvever, that i n some i nsbances, the fai l ttre
to mention that each and every one of the
pages of the will
had been signe,.l in the
presence of the witnesses,
the same shorvs that the rvill rvas signed by the testator
in the presence of the tvitnesses, and that the fact that
all the
pages thereof has been signed hy the testator cnd
rvitnesse.s, may- bq
b-y an inspection Of the.
itsclf, has not been considered"-a-mater:ial de-fect,
suc"[- doctr:inei"has been reversed. in later decisions.
In effect, in the case of Uy Cq-gUe,.-1ls., N-a-va!
43 Phil., 405, tfue attestation clause contested teaT as
f t rl l o' vs:
fhe undersi gned
wi tnesses of thi s rri l l , statg that i t has been
shorvn to us by the restatri x as her l ast wi l l and testament' And as
she cannot si gn her name, she asked thac Mr. Fi l omeno Pi czon si gn
her name i n the presence of each of us, and each of us, the rvi t-
nesses, al so si gned i n the presence of the testatri x"'
Sai d attestati on cl attse was consi dered defecti ve for i ts
fai l ure to state the number of
pages contai ned' i n the rvi l l -'
anci that the rvitnesses signed in the
presence of each other'
: ;,;
a' ' '
.L:. i.-
The wi l l was, therefore,
consi derecl
nui l and voi d and l vas
not admi tted
to probate.
I n t he case of Saf l o as.
eui nt ana, 4g
phi l . ,
506, t he
fol l orvi ng
doctri ne
was l ai d dorvn ;
"An attestati on
crause whi ch does not reci te that the wi tnesses
si gned the wi l r and each and every page
thereof on the reft margi n
i n the presence
of the testator i s defect-i ve,
and such a defect annul s
t he wi l l . " (Syl l abus)
In the case of Gumban as. Gorecho,
phi l .,
80, the
attestati on
cl ause quoted
i n the di ssenti ng
opi ni on of
' Jus-
ti ce Romual dez
read as fol l ows:
* *
That the testator Eustaqui o
Hagori l es
si gned sai d wi u
l n our presence
and that we si gned the sai d wi l l i n thu pr"r"rrce
t he t est at or and i n t he presence
of each and everyone
of us; sai d
rvi l l consi sts of ten used pages,
i ncrudi ng
thi s l ast page.,,
The supreme
court in denying
the probate
of the rvill
and reversi ng
the creci si on
from l ai d cl o,,vn the
f ol l l vi ng
doct ri ne:
"An attestati on
crause whi ch does not reci te trrat the wi rnesses
srgned the wi i l and each and every page
thcreof on the reft rnargi n
i n the prsr.ce
of the testar,or i " defl cti vu,
urro- such a defect annurs
t he w^l l . ' ,
In the ease of
4g7, the
attestati on
cl ause read as fol l cws:
"Nosotros l os
fi rmanros
ar fi nar de este testarnento,
Fl orenci no
Joya, Aguedo so:' i ano y
Teodoro Breza damos fe, de haber vi sto o
presenci ado
et act o de f i rnar en est a escr' i t ura
o t est arnert o
cl e l os
esposos Gregori o
y carmen
eui nto; ro fi rmaron
el ros en
nuest ra
rresenci a,
y qre no: ot ros
rcs i esf i gos,
ro 5r-amos
; ; ; ". -
senci e do cada unc de nosotros,
hoy b du ,,o,oi u*bre
de rgz0. Este
est6 cornpuesto
de tres foj as fti l es;,,
t he cour. t sai d:
"As wi l i be noted, the attestati on
cl ause contravenes
the express
: ' eeui rement s
of sect i on 6' s of Aet l rro. rg0, u. -; -ended
r_ry Act No.
2645, i n two ways: Fi rst, i t fai rs to state tt uu uu.r, and every page
of tl ' :e rvi l l rvas si gned by the testators
and the wi tnesses;
a' rr,
seeond, i t fai l s to state that the
-wi tnesses
*i gn.a
each and every
of thc wi l l i n the presence
oi the testai or:q,,
and in vielv
the decision
. di sal l owi ng
the wi l l .
hol ever,
tc the doctri ne
Iai d doryn i n the
deci si ons
i n the case of Na;,ye
?r,s. Moj al and
Agui l ar, 4T Phi l ., rsz, i n whi ci r the attesi ati on
crause ,.ui
as f ol l ows:
"si gned and decrared
by the testator
Don Antoni o
Moj ar to be
hi s l ast rvi l l and t est ament
i n t he presence
of cach of us, and at t he
i ' e{uest of sai d testator Don Antoni o
l \Ioi al , *u-.i gred
thi s wi l l i n
the presence
of each other and of the tesi attr.
- '
"PEDRo C.rno
"SILvEBIo Monco
"ZotLo Mesrwes,'
Vor,. 46, No. lz
The Supreme
Court sai d:
"wi th regard to the rast defect poi nterl
out, namery,
that the
does not appear to have si g' ed on ai l the sheets of the wi i l
i n the presence
of the three wi tnesses,
ancl the ratter to have attested
and si gned on al l the sheets i n the presence
or i l e testator
and of
each other, i t must be noted that i n the attestati on
cl ause above
s:t out i t i s sai d that the testator si gned the wi l l
,i n
the presence
each of the wi tnesses'
and the l atter si gned
,i n
i l rc presence
of each
other and of the testqtor.' so that, as to whether i l re testator
the attesti ng
wi tnesses
saw each,other
si gn the wi i l , .u.h a requi re-
was cl earl v
l "g
suffi ci eni l y
compl i ed wi th. what i s not stated
i n thi s cl ause i s whether the tesi ator
and the wi tnesses
si gnecr al l the
of the wi l l .
"The act of t he t est at or
ard t he wi t nesses
seei ng reci procal l y
t he
si gni ng oi the wi l l i s one whi ch cannot be proven
by the mere exhi bi -
t i on of t he wi l l unl ess i t i s st at ed i n t he' document .
And t hi s f act
i s expressl y stated i n the attestati on
cl ausc now before us. But the
f act of t he t est at or and t he rvi t ne. rur
r. uri "e' . t "". 0
ai l t he sheet s
:f_i*:tilT:I^b-" li:l"
b{,thu ,nu,," ;;;"tt"";^;;
il ;:#;l;
::,1?"9:,1 i::',1*:y
about ;hi;; ;J;f ;;:,";:1;:;;
n,:t" i: l.:,^^'.n:,^i":t-1-"1 :u':,
;;;; i;-;htr";;;;;;;
whi ch i s what the l aw tri es to avoi d, cl oes not exi st.
"The order appeal ed frorn i s affi wi th the costs agai nst the
appel l ant .
So ordered. ' ,
This was the most liberal construction given
by our highest
to the provisions
of article 61g, qf Act 1g0-, re-
gardi ng
the fai l ure of the atrestati on
crause to menti on the
fact that the testator and bhe *,itnesses signed
each and
every page
of the wi l i by consi de:i ng
.c2i ;1 omi ssi on
i nsi g_
ni fi cant
and not affecfi ng the val i ci ty of the
.vi l l ,
al th' ugh
i n subsequent
oeci si ons herei :rabou.
*.nti oned,
the sup-
' eme court re,zersed i tsel f atc reestabri shed
the rormer
doctri ne that sti ch omi ssi on was materi al ,
ancl as such \yas
a sufficient ground
on r.vhich the nullity of the will could
be predi cated.
The attestati on
cl ause i n the i nstant case has fai l e.I to
mention that fhe rvill to which it was attachecl
thereof had heen signed by the testatrix,
or ilrat ,o*uioJy
el se, under h:r expressed
request, si gned Lt' name,
that she affixed thei'eto
her' thrrmhmark
in the presence
of eaeh and every one of the r-,,itnesses.
It has also failed
to mention that the rvitnesses
sig/red said rvill a'd every
o'e of the pages
of r,vhich it consists in the pres.rr..
each other end of the testatrix. The omission
of these
two essential facts
to the vatiaity
of the rvill renclers
the same nul l and voi d. The doctri ne l ai c dor,vn i n the
case of Nayve as. Mojal and Ag,rilar,
suprr, is not
appl i cabl e i n the i nstant case, because the omi ssi on
wi th
whi ch we are concerl l ed
consi si s not oni y i n the fai l ure to
state the faci that the testatrix signed each and every one
of the pages
of r,vhich the lvill .orrsirt., but also in the fact
"Theref ol ' e, as i n t he i nst ant case t l i e f act t hat i . he t est at or
the wi tnesses
si gned each and every page
of the
' ,vi ,
i s proven
mcre exami nat i on
of t he si gnat ures
i n t he wi l l , t he omi ssi on
expressl y
state such evi dent fact docs nob i nval i aut"
the wi l l
i ts probate.
DncpMsnn, 1950 OF' FICIAL GAZETTE 6175
that she si gned sai d rvi l l i n the presence
of the wi tnesses.
Moreover, sai d attestati on cl anse fai l ed l i kervi se to men-
ti on the fact that the wi tnesses si gned the wi l l i n the
of each other and of the testatrix, which is ano-
ther substanti al omi ssi on to i nval i cl ate the rvi l l .
The proponent
of the r' i l l tri ed to estabri sh through
the wi tnesses Roque Rom, Gregori o Del aganar and cami l o
Talam that the testatrix signed each and every one of the
of the u' i l l i n thei r presence
by causi ng Roque Rom
to sign for her and that she affixed her thumbmark with
the assistance of Mateo Murillo to each ancl every page
sai d wi l l i r' the presence
of each and every one of the
wi tnesses who i n turn si gned each ancl every page
of the
rvi l l i n her presence
and i n the presence
of each other,
over and above the obj ecti on of the attorneys for the
opposi tors. Sai d evi dence cannot be tal <en i nto sonsi der-
ati on i n accordance wi th the doctri ne l ai d dorvn i n the case
?rs. l\forata, supra, to the effect that
al i ,unce ."houl d not be acl nri tted to establ i sh facts not ap-
peari ng i n the attestati on cl ause and where such evi dence
has been adi ni tted, i t shoul d not be gi ven
the effect i n-
t ended. "
whcrefo'e, the
appealed from is hereL'J' af-
fi rmed, wi th costs agai nst the appel l ant.
Jugo, and De l a Rosa,,.I., concur.
Jud,gment affirnted,.
[ No.
2655-R. January 19, ; . 949]
Tun Pnopr,p oF THE PrrrlrpprNgs, plaintiff
and appellee, os.
Ana"ra i Uuxal t, accused and apl rel l ant
cRrurNnr, Lalv; rlolrrcrnp; Evrneucn; Exrna.ruprcrAl snr,r-spnvrb{c
Si atsnmxr or Accusno, Ernocr.-A sel f-servi ng state,nent made
extraj udi ci al l y by the accused cannot be used i n hi s favor, but
t he i ncri mi nat i ng evi dence cont ai ned t herei n may be avai l abl e of
by the prosecuti on. (Peopl e
,us. pi ri ng
et al ., SC_G.R. No.
45053, oct . 19, 1936; 2 whart un' s cri mi nal Evi dence, l Lt h ed. ,
p. 1014. )
APPEAL from r
of the court of First Instance
of Sul u. Vi l l al obosi
The facts are stated,,;fn the opinion of the court.
' ! ,
: !
Esclepiades V. \Tolbuena for appellant.
Soticitor-General Felin Bautista Angelo and Assi,stant
Soli,citor'-General Manuel P. Barcelo'na for appeliee.
Juco, ,/..'
Aitjt Mukili wat acc(Isd of rrcurder before the Court
of Fi rst Instance of Sul u and after tri al was
found gui l ty
of homi ci de and sentenced to suffer from ei ght
(8) years
of pri si ,6n nl a,Ao?' to fourteen (14) years,
ei ght
and one ( 1) da1 of reclusi6n temporal, to indemnify the
heitr of the deceased in the sum of P2,000, with the acces-