EN BANC
THE UNITED
STATES,
Complainant-Appellee,
G.
R.
No. 1656
April
2, 1904
-versus-
MARIANO DE LA
CRUZ,
Defendant-Appellant.
D E C I S I
O N
WILLARD,
J :
The Complaint in this case
charged the defendant with the violation of Section 4 of Act No. 518
alleging
that he had given to party of brigands information as to the movements
of the Constabulary and had furnished the party supplies and money.
The Court below found
that sometime after November 12, 1902, the day when Act No. 518 went
into
force, the defendant obtained from Juan Dizon 25 pesos, which he sent
to
Faustino Guillermo, the leader of the band of brigands, convicted him
of
a violation of said Section 4, and sentenced him to fourteen years and
six months of imprisonment.
We doubt very much
if the evidence was sufficient to prove this charge. Both the defendant
and Juan Dizon, a witness for the Government, testified that no money
was
paid by the latter to the former. The only evidence to support the
charge
are certain confessions alleged to have been made by the defendant
after
his arrest to officers of the Constabulary. But whether the evidence is
sufficient or not is immaterial, for even if the money was paid by
Dizon
to the defendant and by him sent to Guillermo, this would not
constitute
an offense under said Section 4. [United States vs. Agaton Ambata, No.
1437, decided February 13, 1904;
[1]
United States vs. Maria Gonzales, decided February 13, 1904
[2]].
There was evidence
in the case tending to show that about two months after the money was
said
to have been paid, the house of Juan Dizon was entered in the nighttime
by a band of men, one of whom was the defendant, and by force and
violence
a certain amount of money was taken therefrom. The witnesses could not
state that the members of this party were armed. The Attorney-General
claims
that under a complaint for brigandage, there can be a conviction of
simple
robbery and cites the case of United States vs. Anastasio Mangubat,
December
2, 1903,
[3]
in support of his contention. In that case, the complaint charged the
crime
of robo en cuadrilla 'o bandolerismo and alleged that the
defendants
had actually robbed various persons. We held that under it the
defendants
could be convicted of simple robbery, there being in that case, as in
this
one, no evidence that the defendants were armed.
But the complaint in
the present case alleges no act of robbery. It does not even allege
that
the defendant was a member of a band of brigands. It is limited, as has
been said, to charging the defendant with furnishing information and
supplies.
We hold that under such a complaint a defendant can not be convicted of
simple robbery, defined in the Penal Code. Such a complaint gives the
defendant
no notice whatever of the specific things which are to be proved
against
him. He is notified by the complaint that the evidence of the
Government
will be directed to proving that he furnished information or supplies
to
a band of brigands. At the trial he finds that the evidence relates to
a robbery committed in a specific house at a designated time. This last
offense is not necessarily included in the offense charged.
The judgment is
reversed
and the defendant acquitted with the costs of both instances de oficio
and without prejudice to the presentation of another complaint against
the defendant for simple robbery.
Cooper, McDonough,
and Johnson, JJ., concur.
Separate
Opinion
ARELLANO, C.J., TORRES and MAPA, JJ.,
Concurring:
We concur in the acquittal
of defendant for lack of evidence of the crime charged, but do not
concur
in the doctrine that furnishing money to a band of brigands does not
constitute
a crime and is not included in Section 4 of Act No. 518.
_____________________________
Endnotes:
[1]
Page 327, supra.
[2]
Not published.
[3]
Page 1, supra. |