Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1903 > August 1903 Decisions > G.R. No. 1225 August 21, 1903 - UNITED STATES v. SATURNINO DE LA CRUZ, ET AL.

002 Phil 431:




PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

EN BANC

[G.R. No. 1225. August 21, 1903. ]

THE UNITED STATES, Complainant-Appellee, v. SATURNINO DE LA CRUZ, ET AL., Defendants-Appellants.

Vicente Miranda for Appellants.

Solicitor-General Araneta for Appellee.

SYLLABUS


1. CRIMINAL LAW; BRIGANDAGE; EVIDENCE. — To sustain a conviction for brigandage the evidence must show the existence of a band organized for the purpose of robbery by force and violence, and that the accused was a member of such a band.


D E C I S I O N


WILLARD, J. :


The Solicitor General asks that the judgment in this case be reversed and that the defendants be acquitted of the charge of brigandage.

We concur in the following statement taken from his brief:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"With respect to the crime of brigandage, the evidence for the prosecution ought to have shown, in such a manner as to leave no room for doubt, that there existed a band of ladrones such as described in Act No. 518; that the aim and purpose of this band were no other than to commit robbery, by means of force and violence, and that the accused had joined the band as members of the same.

"There is evidence in the case which shows the existence of an armed band commanded by Saturnino de la Cruz and that his codefendants were members thereof; but there is absolutely nothing tending to show the aim and purpose of the band.

"The sequestration of the Chinaman Barretto, for the purpose of compelling him to form part of the Bulacan branch of the Katipunan Society, of which branch the accused Saturnino de la Cruz is colonel and his coaccused soldiers; the fact of the Chinaman’s having recovered his liberty as soon as he had written his signature in the Katipunan book, and without having lost any of his personal property, are facts which, far from showing that the purpose of the band of Saturnino de la Cruz and his codefendants was to commit robbery, indicate the contrary. . . .

"In accordance with the above-mentioned Act No. 518, proof that the aim of an armed band is to commit robbery is necessary in order that the members of such band may be considered guilty and convicted of brigandage. And as the prosecution has not offered such proof the conviction of the accused is not justified."cralaw virtua1aw library

From the statement there should be excepted, however, the defendant Basilio Reyes. There is no evidence that he was a member of the party which assaulted the house of the Chinaman Barretto. The only evidence in the case to convict him either of brigandage or any other crime, is the statement by one of the police that a dagger was found in the house where he was arrested.

The judgment against all of the defendants-appellants is reversed, and they are acquitted of the charge of brigandage, with costs de oficio. As to all except Basilio Reyes, there is evidence in the record which requires that they should be prosecuted for rebellion or insurrection under section 3 of Act No. 292, as suggested by the Solicitor-General, and perhaps also for murder.

Arellano, C.J., Torres, Cooper, Mapa and McDonough, JJ., concur.




Back to Home | Back to Main




















chanrobles.com





ChanRobles On-Line Bar Review

ChanRobles Internet Bar Review : www.chanroblesbar.com

ChanRobles MCLE On-line

ChanRobles Lawnet Inc. - ChanRobles MCLE On-line : www.chanroblesmcleonline.com






August-1903 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. 1278 August 1, 1903 - EUGENIO BONAPLATA v. BYRON S. AMBLER

    002 Phil 392

  • G.R. No. 1149 August 3, 1903 - UNITED STATES v. GREGORIO MABILANGAN

    002 Phil 397

  • G.R. No. 1174 August 3, 1903 - UNITED STATES v. LEON ANGELES, ET AL.

    002 Phil 400

  • G.R. No. 1068 August 5, 1903 - LUIS ASIS v. JORGE PARDO

    002 Phil 401

  • G.R. No. 1118 August 6, 1903 - VICENTE GONZALEZ v. TELESFORO CRISANTO

    002 Phil 404

  • G.R. No. 1208 August 6, 1903 - UNITED STATES v. JOSE QUEVENGCO

    002 Phil 412

  • G.R. No. 1430 August 12, 1903 - PLACIDO BANAYO v. MUNICIPAL PRESIDENT OF SAN PABLO

    002 Phil 413

  • G.R. No. 1255 August 17, 1903 - UNITED STATES v. FELIPE ABAIGAR

    002 Phil 417

  • G.R. No. 1179 August 18, 1903 - UNITED STATES v. ARTHUR FITZGERALD

    002 Phil 419

  • G.R. No. 1103 August 19, 1903 - UNITED STATES, ET AL. v. EUSTAQUIO RABADILLAS

    002 Phil 423

  • G.R. No. 1229 August 19, 1903 - FRANCISCO GALI v. FAUSTINO SAHAGUN, ET AL.

    002 Phil 425

  • G.R. No. 1280 August 19, 1903 - UNITED STATES v. ISIDORO MADLANGBAYAN, ET AL.

    002 Phil 426

  • G.R. No. 1198 August 21, 1903 - UNITED STATES v. INOCENCIO MENDOZA, ET AL.

    002 Phil 429

  • G.R. No. 1225 August 21, 1903 - UNITED STATES v. SATURNINO DE LA CRUZ, ET AL.

    002 Phil 431

  • G.R. No. 1302 August 21, 1903 - UNITED STATES v. NARCISO CALIGAGAN

    002 Phil 433

  • G.R. No. 1307 August 21, 1903 - UNITED STATES v. JOSE RAMOS, ET AL.

    002 Phil 434

  • G.R. No. 1448 August 22, 1903 - SIMEON VILLA v. HENRY T. ALLEN

    002 Phil 436

  • G.R. No. 1125 August 24, 1903 - LUCIANO P. CORDOBA v. ANGEL M. CONDE

    002 Phil 445

  • G.R. No. 1331 August 25, 1903 - UNITED STATES v. MELECIO MACALINTAL, ET AL.

    002 Phil 448

  • G.R. No. 1173 August 27, 1903 - UNITED STATES v. BONIFACIO FULGENCIO

    002 Phil 452

  • G.R. No. 1175 August 27, 1903 - UNITED STATES v. TOMAS HINTO SANTOS, ET AL.

    002 Phil 453

  • G.R. No. 1231 August 29, 1903 - UNITED STATES v. ISIDORO PASCUAL, ET AL.

    002 Phil 457

  • G.R. No. 1316 August 29, 1903 - UNITED STATES v. LI-DAO

    002 Phil 458

  • G.R. No. 994 August 31, 1903 - UNITED STATES v. R.W. DOUGLAS

    002 Phil 461

  • G.R. No. 1285 August 31, 1903 - UNITED STATES v. PEDRO LARION

    002 Phil 476