FIRST DIVISION
[G.R. No. 2772. September 21, 1906. ]
THE UNITED STATES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. LOUIS A. UNSELT, Defendant-Appellant.
W. A. Kincaid, for Appellant.
Solicitor-General, Araneta, for Appellee.
SYLLABUS
1. PROMISES OF IMMUNITY. — Promises of immunity made by officers of the Government constitute no defense in a criminal action.
D E C I S I O N
WILLARD, J.:
There was evidence in the case sufficient to prove that the defendant, Unselt, after the promulgation of Act No. 518 relating to brigandage, and prior to his first arrest on the 5th day of February, 1903, committed acts which were in violation of that law. After he was arrested in February, he entered into the service of the Constabulary as a detective. He was discharged from such service and again arrested in July, 1903.
Whether during this time, and particularly in connection with his visit to the camp of Felizardo, he committed any acts in violation of law we have not inquired because we are satisfied that the evidence as to acts committed prior to his first arrest is sufficient to sustain the judgment.
The defendant claims that after his affairs arrest he entered into the service of the Constabulary under the promise that he should not be prosecuted for any acts committed prior to that time. We have not considered whether such promises were or were not made, for with this question we have nothing to do.
If they were made they would not constitute any defense to this action.
The judgment of the court below is affirmed, with the costs of this instance against the Appellant.
After the expiration of ten days let final judgment be entered in accordance herewith and ten days thereafter let the case be returned to the court below for proper action. So ordered.
Arellano, C.J., Torres, Mapa, Carson, and Tracey, JJ., concur.
Whether during this time, and particularly in connection with his visit to the camp of Felizardo, he committed any acts in violation of law we have not inquired because we are satisfied that the evidence as to acts committed prior to his first arrest is sufficient to sustain the judgment.
The defendant claims that after his affairs arrest he entered into the service of the Constabulary under the promise that he should not be prosecuted for any acts committed prior to that time. We have not considered whether such promises were or were not made, for with this question we have nothing to do.
If they were made they would not constitute any defense to this action.
The judgment of the court below is affirmed, with the costs of this instance against the Appellant.
After the expiration of ten days let final judgment be entered in accordance herewith and ten days thereafter let the case be returned to the court below for proper action. So ordered.
Arellano, C.J., Torres, Mapa, Carson, and Tracey, JJ., concur.
