November 13, 1913 | Johnson, J. | Conduct and Character as Evidence Digester: Galope, Mark Allen SUMMARY: Defendants Pio, Tomas, and Catalino Mercado were convicted of coercion by CFI of Bulacan upon a complaint by one Claro Mercado. The defendants, by means of violence or force employed upon Claro, prevented the latter from rendering aid to Maria R. Mateo, in order that Santiago Mercado might maltreat the said woman. In their appeal, defendants took exception to a question asked by private prosecutor during the trial to the defense witness, Santiago Mercado: How many times have you been convicted of assault upon other persons?. Defendants insisted that the question was not related to the matter being investigated in the trial, while prosecutor explained that he wanted to show the pugnacious nature of Santiago, having defended him before in other assault cases. The Court ruled in favor of the defendants (on this particular objection only, because their conviction was affirmed in the end), pointing out that the question was not relevant to the important fact being proved by the prosecution, which was that Santiago had assaulted Maria R. Mateo, in order to show that there was occasion for Claro to interfere. DOCTRINE: A witness cannot be impeached by the party against whom he has been called, except by showing that:
that he has made contradictory statements;
by showing that his general reputation for truth, honesty, or
integrity is bad; or
that he has been convicted of a high crime.
FACTS: One Claro Mercado presented a complaint against Pio, Tomas, and Catalino, all surnamed Mercado (defendants) for coercion, alleging in the Information that the latter, by means of violence or force employed upon his person, prevented him from rendering aid to Maria R. Mateo in order that Santiago Mercado (note that Santiago Mercado is not one of the defendants) might maltreat the said Maria R. Mateo, in violation of law. During trial, one of the defendants, Tomas, objected to the question asked by private prosecutor to defense witness Santiago Mercado for being impertinent. The question was:
How many times have you been convicted of assault upon
other persons? Private prosecutor explained that the question was intended to show the pugnacious nature of Santiago, as he had previously defended him in various cases of assault. The Judge overruled the objection, ruling that the question may have a strong relation to the facts being investigated. In answer to that question, Santiago admitted that complaint had been presented against him for assault and battery. After trial, the Judge found the defendants guilty. Hence, this appeal.
RULING: CFI of Bulacan AFFIRMED. Conviction of the
defendants UPHELD. [TOPIC]. Whether the possibility that the witness had assaulted other persons and had been prosecuted therefor may be considered by the court in weighing the proof and in testing the credibility of the witness in this particular case? NO. Defendants: the question had no relation to the question which was being discussed by the court and did not tend to show that the defendants were either guilty or not guilty of the crime charged; that questions tending to disclose the character of a witness are immaterial. First, the Court pointed out that it was an important for the prosecution to prove that Santiago Mercado, at the time and place mentioned in the complaint, had assaulted or attempted to assault or ill-treat Maria R. Mateo, in order to show that there was occasion for the interference of Claro Mercado. This was the matter being investigated by the Court when the controversial question was asked. Generally speaking, a witness cannot be impeached by the party against whom he has been called, except by showing that: that he has made contradictory statements; by showing that his general reputation for truth, honesty, or integrity is bad; or that he has been convicted of a high crime. The question to which the defendant objected neither attempted to show that the witness had made contradictory statements nor that his general reputation for truth, honesty, or integrity was bad. Neither is assault a high crime, as that term is generally used (i.e., in its ordinary signification). High
crimes are generally defined as such immoral and unlawful
acts as are nearly allied and equal in guilt to felonies. Court ruled that the objection to the question was properly interposed and should have been sustained.
Whether the admission of the question prejudiced the rights
of the defendants? NO. If there was proof enough adduced during the trial of the cause, independent of the answer brought out by this question, showing the guilt of the defendants, then the question did not affect prejudicially the interests of the defendants. Errors committed by the trial court, which are not prejudicial to the rights of the parties, should be disregarded by the court. Court found out that the evidence clearly shows that Santiago committed the assault. Whether he had committed other
assaults was not important. The admission of the proof to
which such question related could in no way prejudice the rights of the defendants. Whether the defendants should have been allowed to testify the same way the sole witness Santiago Mercado was allowed to testify. NO. Even admitting that the accused, had they testified, would have made the same declarations as those made by the only witness, Santiago Mercado, the Court ruled that such declarations would not have been sufficient, inasmuch as they would have added nothing to the record, except an accumulation of proof, to have shown that the defendants were not guilty.