People vs. Diokno and Diokno
People vs. Diokno and Diokno
People vs. Diokno and Diokno
602
1
VlLLA-REAL, J.:
Epifanio Diokno and Roman Diokno appeal to this court
from the judgment of the Court of First Instance of
Laguna, the dispositive part of which reads as follows:
"In view of the foregoing considerations, the court finds
the accused Epifanio Diokno and Roman Diokno guilty of
the crime of murder, beyond a reasonable doubt, and
sentences each of them to reclusin perpetua, to
indemnify jointly and severally the heirs of the deceased
in the sum of P1,000 and to pay the costs of the suit. "It is
so ordered."
In support of their appeal, the appellants assign the
following alleged errors as committed by the court a quo
in its judgment in question, to wit:
'"1.The lower court erred in accepting Exhibit E as
2
3
4
evidence.
"2.The lower court erred in admitting Exhibit K as
evidence.
"3.The lower court erred in not acquitting the appellant
Roman.
"4.The lower court erred in sentencing the appellant
Epifanio to reclusin perpetua."
The following facts have been proven beyond a
reasonable doubt during the trial:
The deceased Yu Hiong was a vendor of sundry goods in
Lucena, Tayabas. At about 7 o'clock in the morning of
January 4, 1935, Salome Diokno, to whom Yu Hiong was
engaged for about a year, invited the latter to go with
her. Yu Hiong accepted the invitation but he told Salome
that her father was angry with him. Salome answered
him: "No matter, I will be responsible." At about 6 o'clock
in the afternoon of said day, Yu Hiong and Salome Diokno
took an automobile and went to the house of Vicente
Verina, Salome's cousin, in Pagbilao. As they found
nobody in the house, they went on their way up to San
Pablo, Laguna. On January 5th or 6th of said year, Roman
Diokno telegraphed his father Epifanio Diokno, who was
in Manila, informing him that Salome had eloped
604
604
606
608
610
611
612
614