EN BANC
[G.R. No. 2000. April 19, 1905. ]
THE UNITED STATES, Complainant-Appellee, v. VICENTE LIM TICO ET AL., Defendants-Appellants.
Nazario Constantino and James Ostrand, for Appellants.
Solicitor-General Araneta, for Appellee.
SYLLABUS
1. CODEFENDANTS; EXTRAJUDICIAL CONFESSIONS. — Extrajudicial confessions made by one defendant can not prejudice his codefendants.
2. TESTIMONY OF ACCOMPLICES. — Held, That in this case the uncorroborated testimony of an accomplice was not sufficient to convict the Appellant.
2. TESTIMONY OF ACCOMPLICES. — Held, That in this case the uncorroborated testimony of an accomplice was not sufficient to convict the Appellant.
D E C I S I O N
WILLARD, J.:
There were three defendants in the court below. Of these Dy Too was acquitted; Tan Chui was convicted, but did not appeal; Vicente Lim Tico was convicted, and has appealed.
The appellant made no confession to the police officers or the detectives. The testimony of the witnesses Marshall, Hard, Compton, and Farland as to extrajudicial confessions made by the defendant Tan Chui and other can not prejudice the appellant Lim Tico. As to him the testimony of these witnesses is hearsay, and inadmissible.
With this testimony eliminated, the only evidence against the appellant that remains is the testimony of his code-defendant, Tan Chui, given at the trial. None of the property stolen was found in the possession of the Appellant. There was testimony that he and Tan Chui were not friends, that they had quarreled, and that Tan Chui had made threats against him.
Tan Chui, in his testimony, inculpated himself as well as the appellant, but it is to be observed that the Government, while it had no evidence against the appellant, did have other evidence against Tan Chui — evidence to the effect that he was in possession of some property stolen.
We have no intention of laying down the proposition that the testimony of an accomplice can not be used for the purposes of a conviction, but under the circumstances of this case we agree with the Solicitor-General that this appellant ought not to be convicted upon the sole and unsupported evidence of Tan Chui.
The judgment so far relates to Vicente Lim Tico is reversed, and he acquitted, with costs as to him de oficio.
Arellano, C.J., Torres, Mapa, Johnson and Carson, JJ., concur.
The appellant made no confession to the police officers or the detectives. The testimony of the witnesses Marshall, Hard, Compton, and Farland as to extrajudicial confessions made by the defendant Tan Chui and other can not prejudice the appellant Lim Tico. As to him the testimony of these witnesses is hearsay, and inadmissible.
With this testimony eliminated, the only evidence against the appellant that remains is the testimony of his code-defendant, Tan Chui, given at the trial. None of the property stolen was found in the possession of the Appellant. There was testimony that he and Tan Chui were not friends, that they had quarreled, and that Tan Chui had made threats against him.
Tan Chui, in his testimony, inculpated himself as well as the appellant, but it is to be observed that the Government, while it had no evidence against the appellant, did have other evidence against Tan Chui — evidence to the effect that he was in possession of some property stolen.
We have no intention of laying down the proposition that the testimony of an accomplice can not be used for the purposes of a conviction, but under the circumstances of this case we agree with the Solicitor-General that this appellant ought not to be convicted upon the sole and unsupported evidence of Tan Chui.
The judgment so far relates to Vicente Lim Tico is reversed, and he acquitted, with costs as to him de oficio.
Arellano, C.J., Torres, Mapa, Johnson and Carson, JJ., concur.
