People v. Inductivo
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: The defendants Donato Inductivo, Lucas Lizarondo, and Francisco Chico were charged with a violation of Act No. 1757, the Gambling Law, for allegedly being collectors of jueteng. The criminal complaint initially included Maximo Obdulio, but a motion was made to dismiss the complaint against him "para utilizarle como testigo de cargo" (in order that he might be used as a government witness), which was granted by the justice of the peace. Procedural History: An information was filed in the Court of First Instance against Inductivo, Lizarondo, and Chico, with Maximo Obdulio named as a prosecution witness. The chief of police testified regarding the arrest of the defendants and Obdulio, identifying them as collectors of jueteng. Maximo Obdulio then testified for the prosecution. During his cross-examination, it was revealed that the justice of the peace had told him he would be used as a government witness, and by reason of this, he was no longer considered an accused. The fiscal objected to further questioning on this point as incompetent and immaterial, and the objection was sustained. No formal objection was raised by the defense regarding Obdulio's competency as a witness, nor was any adverse action taken by the trial court. The Court of First Instance found the three defendants guilty. The Petition: The defendants appealed the judgment, raising four assignments of error. The second assignment of error argued that the testimony of a co-accused, Maximo Obdulio, admitted without objection, was insufficient to convict the appellants Donato Inductivo and Francisco Chico because the requisites of Act No. 2709 were not followed.
Issue(s)
Whether the testimony of Maximo Obdulio is admissible and can be considered on appeal despite the alleged failure to follow the procedures for discharging an accused under Act No. 2709. Whether there is sufficient evidence to convict the appellants even if the testimony of the discharged witness is excluded.
Ruling
The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the Court of First Instance, finding the defendants guilty of violating Act No. 1757. The Court held that the issue regarding the admissibility of Maximo Obdulio's testimony, not having been raised in the trial court, could not be considered on appeal. Furthermore, the Court found sufficient evidence from the chief of police's testimony to warrant the conviction of the three defendants, even without considering Obdulio's testimony.
Ratio Decidendi
On Issue 1: The Supreme Court held that the contention regarding the violation of Act No. 2709 cannot prosper because the defense failed to raise a formal objection at the trial level. It is a well-settled rule in Philippine jurisprudence that matters not raised in the trial court, except for jurisdictional issues, will not be reviewed on appeal. Since the defense permitted Obdulio to testify without objection and only raised the issue during cross-examination without seeking a specific ruling from the trial court, there was no ruling for the appellate court to review. The court cited the principle from 'People v. Murray' that an appellate court has no legal question to review if the trial court has made no ruling. Consequently, the defense is deemed to have waived their right to challenge the competency of the witness or the regularity of his discharge. Additionally, the Court noted that the justice of the peace court was not a 'competent court' to discharge an accused under Act No. 2709 in this context. On Issue 2: The Court ruled that even if the testimony of Maximo Obdulio were to be completely disregarded, the conviction would still stand. The prosecution presented the 'clear and convincing' testimony of the chief of police, Claro Soriano, who arrested the defendants and identified them as collectors of 'jueteng.' This independent evidence was sufficient to prove the violation of the Gambling Law (Act No. 1757) beyond reasonable doubt. The Court emphasized that a procedural error in the discharge of a state witness does not necessitate an acquittal if other evidence establishes guilt. Furthermore, because the discharge occurred in a court lacking jurisdiction (the justice of the peace court), the Court observed that Maximo Obdulio remained liable for prosecution. This situation is akin to proceedings in a court having no jurisdiction, which does not bar subsequent prosecution in a court with jurisdiction.
Main Doctrine
Questions not raised in the trial court will generally not be considered on appeal, except for jurisdictional matters and a few other exceptions. Furthermore, the admission of testimony without objection in the trial court waives the right to raise the issue of its admissibility on appeal.