Sie sind auf Seite 1von 5



January 22, 1918

Santiago Pineda, the defendant, is a registered pharmacist of long standing and the owner of a drug store. One Feliciano Santos, having some sick horses, presented a copy of a prescription obtained from Dr. Richardson, and which on other occasions Santos had given to his horses with good results, at Pineda s drug store for filling. !he prescription read " #clorato de potasa " $%& gramos " en seis papelitos de %& gramos, para caballo.# 'nder the supervision of Pineda, the prescription was prepared and returned to Santos in the form of si( papers marked, #)otica Pineda " *lorato potasa " $%&.&& " en seis papeles " para caballo " Sto. *risto ++%, +++, )inondo, ,anila.# Santos, under the belief that he had purchased the potassium chlorate which he had asked for, put two of the packages in water the doses to two of his sick horses. -nother package was mi(ed with water for another horse, but was not used. !he two horses, to which had been given the preparation, died shortly afterwards. Santos, thereupon, took the three remaining packages to the )ureau of Science for e(amination. Drs. Pe.a and Dar/uan, of the )ureau of Science, on analysis found that the packages contained not potassium chlorate but barium chlorate. -t the instance of Santos, the two chemists also went to the drug store of the defendant and bought potassium chlorate, which when analy0ed was found to be barium chlorate. 1)arium chlorate, it should be noted, is a poison2 potassium chlorate is not.3 Dr. )uencamino, a veterinarian, performed an autopsy on the horses, and found that death was the result of poisoning. Four assignments of error are made. !he first is that the lower court erred in admitting the testimony of the chemist Pena and Dar/uan as to their purchase of potassium chlorate at the drug store of the accused, which substance proved on analysis to be barium chlorate. 4hat the appellant is here relying on is the ma(im res inter alios acta. -s a general rule, the evidence of other offenses committed by a defendant is inadmissible. )ut appellant has confused this ma(im and this rule with certain e(ceptions thereto. !he effort is not to convict the accused of a second offense. !he purpose is to ascertain defendant s knowledge and intent, and to fi( his negligence. !he second assignment of error is that the lower court erred in finding that the substance sold by the accused to Feliciano Santos was barium chlorate and not potassium chlorate. !he proof demonstrates the contrary. !he third and fourth assignments of error that the lower court erred in finding that the accused has been proved guilty beyond a reasonable doubt of an infraction of -ct 5o. 678, section $8, as amended. !he third assignment contains the points we should consider, including, we may remark, a somewhat difficult 9uestion concerning which the briefs have given little assistance. !he Pharmacy :aw was first enacted as -ct 5o. 678, was later amended by -ct 5os. $7%$, %%;<, and %;=%, and is now found as *hapter ;& of the -dministrative *ode. !he law provides for a board of pharmaceutical e(aminers, and the e(amination and registration of pharmacists, and finally contains sundry provisions relative to the practice of pharmacy. >igh 9ualification for applicants for the pharmaceutical2 e(amination are established. !he program of sub/ects for the e(amination is wide. Responsibility for the 9uality of drugs is fi(ed by section $8 of the Pharmacy :aw, as amended 1now -dministrative *ode ?$7$8@, section 86$3, in the following termA Bvery pharmacist shall be responsible for the 9uality of all drugs, chemicals, medicines, and poisons he may sell or keep for sale2 and it shall be unlawful for any person whomsoever to manufacture, prepare, sell, or administer any prescription, drug, chemical, medicine, or poison under any fraudulent name, direction, or pretense, or to adulterate any drug, chemical, medicine, or poison so used, sold or offered for sale. -ny drug, chemical, medicine, or poison shall be held to be adulterated or deteriorated within the meaning of this section if it differs from the standard of 9uality or purity given in the 'nited States Pharmacopoeia. !he same section of the Pharmacy :aw also contains the following penal provisionA #-ny person violating the provisions of this -ct shall, upon conviction, be punished by a fine of not more than five hundred dollar.# !he -dministrative *ode, section %<8<, changes the penalty somewhat by providing thatA

-ny person engaging in the practice of pharmacy in the Philippine Cslands contrary to any provision of the Pharmacy :aw or violating any provisions of said law for which no specific penalty s provided shall, for each offense, be punished by a fine not to e(ceed two hundred pesos, or by imprisonment for not more than ninety days, or both, in the discretion of the court. !hese are the provisions of law, pursuant to which prosecution has been initiated and which it is now incumbent upon us to construe. !urning to the law, certain points therein as bearing on our present facts must be admitted. !hus, defendant is a pharmacist. -s a pharmacist, he is made responsible for the 9uality of all drugs and poisons which he sells. -nd finally it is provided that it shall be unlawful for him to sell any drug or poison under any #fraudulent name.# Ct is the one word #fraudulent# which has given the court trouble. 4hat did the :egislature intend to convey by this restrictive ad/ectiveD )earing these general principles in mind, and remembering particularly the care and skill which are e(pected of druggist, that in some /urisdictions they are liable even for their mistake and in others have the burden placed upon them to establish that they were not negligent, it cannot be that the Philippine :egislature intended to use the word #fraudulent# in all its strictness. - plea of accident and mistake cannot e(cuse for they cannot take place unless there be wanton and criminal carelessness and neglect. >ow the misfortune occurs is unimportant, if under all the circumstances the fact of occurrence is attributed to the druggist as a legal fault. Rather considering the responsibility for the 9uality of drugs which the law imposes on druggists and the position of the word #fraudulent# in /u(taposition to #name,# what is made unlawful is the giving of a false name to the drug asked for. !his view is borne out by Spanish translation, which we are permitted to consult to e(plain the Bnglish te(t. Cn the Spanish #supuesto# is used, and this word is certainly not synonymous with #fraudulent.# !he usual badges of fraud, falsify, deception, and in/ury must be presentEbut not scienter. Cn view of the tremendous an imminent danger to the public from the careless sale of poisons and medicines, we do not deem it too rigid a rule to hold that the law penali0es any druggist who shall sell one drug for another whether it be through negligence or mistake. !he /udgment of the lower court, sentencing the defendant to pay a fine of P$&&, with subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency, and to pay the costs, is affirmed with the cost of this instance against the appellant, without pre/udice to any civil action which may be instituted. So ordered.

THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, vs. ENJA!IN IRANG, ET AL., No. L-"51#9 !ar$% &', 19&#

ENJA!IN IRANG, appellant. G.R.

)etween 8 and = o clock of the night of 5ovember 7, $7;6, seven individuals with white stripes upon their faces, two of whom were armed with guns and two with bolos, went to the house of the spouses Perfecto ,elocotones and ,a(iminiana Ficente, where three lights were burning, one at the balcony, another in the room and another on a table. Some of said individuals went up and others remained on guard downstairs. !hose who went up approached Perfecto ,elocotones immediately and ordered him to bring his money. ,elocotones answered in the affirmative but before he could do what was ordered him he was attacked with bolos until he fell to the floor. :ater another armed with a gun went up and approaching ,a(imiana Ficente, wife of Perfecto ,elocotones, struck herein the face with the butt of his gun, making her lose consciousness momentarily. 4hen she regained consciousness he saw her husband already dead. One of the assailants then said to herA #)ring out the money and /ewelry.# ,a(iminiana Ficente turned over to the man who had struck her with the butt of his gun P8& in cash and /ewelry valued at P%&&, which she has kept in a trunk. During the short space of time that she was turning over the money and /ewelry, she looked at the man s face and saw that he had pockmarks and a scar on his left eyelid. !hat same night the house of Guana de la *ru0 was assaulted by malefactors who had been firing shots before arriving at and going up the house. -ll of them had white stripe upon their faces. Guana de la *ru0 noticed that one of them had pockmarks and a scar on the left eyelid and was dressed in a maongEcolored suit. Ct was he who opened her trunk. -fter the malefactors had left Perfecto ,elocotones house, the latter s son !oribio ,elocotones, who had seen the assailants arrive but without recogni0ing them, immediately reported the matter to the municipal authorities and to the constabulary, who went to the scene of the crime without loss of time. ,a(iminiana Ficente informed :ieutenant Roman -le/andre of the *onstabulary that the person who had struck her with the butt of his gun and taken her money and /ewelry was a man of regular statute, with a lean body and pockmarked face. 4ith this description, said lieutenant went in search of said individual. >aving arrested a group of persons, he brought them to ,a(iminiana Ficente s house so that the latter might identify among them the one who struck her with the butt of his gun, but she did not find such man. :ater another group was presented to her and in it she identified the herein accusedEappellant )en/amin Crang as the one who had struck her with the butt of his gun and demanded delivery of her money and /ewelry. >e was likewise the same man arrested by :ieutenant -le/andre at midnight on 5ovember 7, $7;6, in the barrio of !ampac which is five or seven kilometers from ,aturanoc to which he was taken and brought to the house of the deceased. Guana de la *ru0 also recogni0ed )en/amin Crang, through his pockmarks and scar on his left eyelid, as one of the men who had gone up to her house that same night. Once under arrest, the accusedEappellant )en/amin Crang made an affidavit in !agalog 1B(hibit )3, stating that while he was in the barrio of !ampac, municipality of Huimba. Province of 5ueva Bci/a, on 5ovember 7, $7;6 at about 8 o clock in the evening, Fidel Bstrella and Cgnacio Sebastian arrived2 that Fidel Bstrella invited him to go to the house of Cgnacio Sebastian s brotherEinElaw named -ngel !alens because Bstrella had something to tell him2 that upon arriving at -ngel !alens house, Fidel Bstrella invited him to go to ,aturanoc to look for business2 that the appellant asked Fidel Bstrella why he wanted to bring him in the latter told him to stop asking 9uestions otherwise he would slash him with his bolo2 that Fidel Bstrella carried a bolo and Cgnacio Sebastian an unlicensed firearms2 that they went to the house of Perfecto ,elocotones in the barrio of ,aturanoc, Huimba, 5ueva Bci/a, and upon arriving there Fidel Bstrella, who acted as the ringleader, assigned to each and every one of them his corresponding place, designating those who should assault that of 'rsula *abigon2 that )en/amin Crang was in the group formed by Fidel Bstrella and Cgnacio Sebastian, which assaulted the house of Perfecto ,elocotones, having been assigned to stand guard on the stairs of said house2 that Fidel Bstrella, once inside the house, slashed Perfecto ,elocotones thrice with his bolo2 that Fidel Bstrella later told him that they had succeeded in taking money and the shotgun2 and that after the assault they dispersed, each returning to his own home. !his affidavit 1B(hibit )3 was sworn to by )en/amin Crang before the deputy clerk of the *ourt of First Cnstance of 5ueva Bci/a , in the presence of Hraciano Pi.gol, the constabulary soldier who accompanied him. )efore Crang affi(ed his thumbmark and took his oath, the deputy clerk of court asked him if he understood !agalog and when he answered in the affirmative said deputy clerk read the contends of the document to him. -sked whether he had any thing else to add thereto, the appellant answered that he had nothing more to say. !he defense ()* +a,-r.a- /a0 $ya1 of the accusedEappellant is an alibi to the effect that in the afternoon of the day of the commission of the crime, he was in his rice field washing a fishing basket. !here he met Roberto

-lcantara. :ater he went to the house of )uenaventura Gavier to return the fishing basket in 9uestion and to e(ercise on the rings 1/ugar a las arogallas3 with the latter s son Pedro, and two unmarried sons of the appellant s uncle, in the presence of several persons, returning home at = o clock that night. 4hen he was arrested the constabulary soldiers opened his bo( but found nothing in it. !hey later took him in a /itney to the victims house in the barrio of ,aturanoc and upon being brought face to face with the widow ,a(iminiana Ficente, :ieutenant -le/andre told the widowA #this is the one who slashed your husband and punctured your face.# !he widow answered sayingA #Cs it that man, sir.# -s )en/amin Crang answered that he had not left his house, the lieutenant gave him a blow which made him lose consciousness. !hen the lieutenant said to the widowA #>e is the same man. Ct was he to whom you delivered the money and /ewelry. :ook at him well. Cdentify him well.# Cn the constabulary barracks in *abanatuan the soldiers and a sergeant manhandled him from the night of 5ovember 7, $7;6, until + o clock in the morning of the $$th of said month and year, for having denied all knowledge of the crime, making him lose his breath and punching him in the stomach. 4hen he could no longer bear the maltreatment, he agreed to tell what they wanted him to tell. 'pon being taken for investigation, the constabulary soldiers told him to agree to all that the clerk of court might read to him, otherwise they would again manhandle him at the barracks. >e was not present when the affidavit B(hibit ) was prepared. 5either are the contents thereof true. >e merely affi(ed his thumbmark upon said document for fear of the soldiers. :ieutenant -le/andre as well as Sergeant :ubrico denied that the accused had been maltreated in the least. ISSUE2 !he only 9uestion to be decided in the present appeal is whether or not the accusedEappellant )en/amin Crang was identified as one of those who assaulted the house of Perfecto ,elocotones, killed him and robbed his wife ,a(iminiana Ficente of money and /ewelry. ,a(iminiana Ficente, whom the accusedEappellant )en/amin Crang struck in the face with the butt of his gun and of whom he demanded delivery of her money and /ewelry scrutini0ed the latter s face and notice that he had pockmarks and a scar on his left eyelid. 4hen on that same night of the assault :ieutenant -le/andre, guided by the description given him by ,a(iminiana Ficente, went in search of the person who might have maltreated the latter and robbed her of her money and /ewelry and presented a group of persons to said ,a(iminiana Ficente, she said that the man who had maltreated her was not among those who composed that first group. Said lieutenant later presented another group to her but neither did the widow find in it the man who had struck her with the butt of his gun. Cn the third group presented to her, she immediately pointed at one who turned out to be the herein accusedEappellant. !he man pointed at protested but when she told him that it was he who had struck her in the face with the butt of his gun, the appellant became silent. !he testimony of Guana de la *ru0 to the effect that her house, situated only about one hundred meters from that of Perfecto ,elocotones, was assaulted that same night by some malefactors with white stripes upon their faces, and that one of them, with pockmarks on his face and a scar on his left eyelid and dressed in a maongE colored suit, who later turned out to be the herein accusedEappellant, opened her bo(, indirectly corroborates ,a(iminiana Ficente s testimony that the man of the same description was the open who went to her house and demanded delivery of her money and /ewelry, having recogni0ed him later to be the herein accusedE appellant. 4hile evidence of another crime is, as a rule, not admissible in a prosecution for robbery, it is admissible when it is otherwise relevant, as where it tends to identify defendant as the perpetrator of the robbery charged, or tends to show his presence at the scene or in the vicinity of the crime at the time charged, or when it is evidence of a circumstance connected with the crime 1$<, *. G., <$&, <$$, sec. $$7<3. ,a(iminiana Ficente s identification of the herein accusedEappellant is likewise corroborated by the latter s own admission invited to assault the house of Perfecto ,elocotones which they in fact the lower court of the appellant s admission under oath upon the assumption that it was not made voluntarily, is erroneous, inasmuch as the only evidence that it was not voluntarily is the accusedEappellant s own testimony that he had been manhandled by the constabulary soldiers and threatened with further maltreatment if he did not testify as they wished. !his imputation of fortune was categorically denied by :ieutenant -le/andre and Sergeant :ubrico of the *onstabulary, before whom the accusedEappellant made the admission and who caused it to be put in writing. !he imputation is likewise contradicted by the deputy clerk of the *ourt of First Cnstance of 5ueva Bci/a before whom the accusedEappellant swore to his admission and who testified that before he administered oath to said accusedEappellant, he asked him whether he understood !agalog and, having been answered in the

affirmative, he read said document to him and asked him whether he had anything to add, the appellant affi(ing his thumbmark upon it after answering that he had nothing more to say 1'. S. vs. Iara, +% Phil., ;&=3. !here is no doubt that an admission made under oath under such circumstances cannot be considered involuntary and therefore is admissible against the person making it. !his court is of the opinion, therefore, that the accusedEappellant identity as one of those who assaulted the house of Perfecto ,elocotones and robbed ,a(iminiana Ficente of her money and /ewelry, is established conclusively beyond reasonable doubt. !he defense of the accused is an alibi and has for its purpose to show that he could both have been at the scene of the crime between 8 and = o clock at night because he was in another place about seven kilometers away at that time. !his defense of alibi is contradicted by the aboveEstated testimony of Guana de la *ru0 and by the accusedEappellant s own admission under oath B(hibit ). !he facts established at the trial as committed by the accusedEappellant beyond reasonable doubt constitute the comple( crime of robbery with homicide defined in article %7;, in connection with article %7+, paragraph $, of the Revised Penal *ode, and punished by reclusion perpetua to death. !aking into consideration all the circumstances of the case, the penalty of reclusion perpetua imposed by the trial /udge is in accordance with the evidence and with law. Ct is not so, however, with the pecuniary liability because, taking into account the gravity of the offense, the indemnity to the heirs of the deceased should be P$,&&& and that for the stolen goods not restored P;7&. 4herefore, with the sole modification that the accusedEappellant )en/amin Crang is sentenced further to indemnify the heirs of the deceased in the sum of P$,&&& and to restore to ,a(iminiana Ficente the sum of P8& and the stolen /ewelry and gun, or to reimburse the value thereof in the amount of P;7&, the /udgment appealed from is affirmed in all other respects, with the costs of this instance to the appellant. So ordered. Avancea, C.J., Abad Santos, Imperial and Dia , JJ., concur.