FIRST
DIVISION
THE UNITED STATES,
Complainant-Appellee,
G.
R.
No. 1192
December
19, 1904
-versus-
LORENZO
CASTRO,
ET AL.,
Defendants-Appellants.
D E C I S I
O N
TORRES, J :
The case now
before the
Court is one of robbery "en cuadrilla" committed by a gang of
five
armed men, on the 22nd day of June, 1902, between 10 and 11 o'clock in
the evening. The robbers broke into a camarin situated in the suburb of
Bangildapo, Municipality of Lubao, Pampanga, belonging to Mauricio L.
de
la Cruz, and, by force and intimidation, took and carried away some
sugar
and other goods amounting to 17 pesos and 40 centavos, and also a
carabao,
worth about 30 pesos, although this animal was recovered shortly
afterwards.
The
existence and
reality
of the crime is fully demonstrated by the testimony of the
eyewitnesses,
Fabian Diua and Victor Maris, who were in the camarin at the time the
crime
was committed and in which place they were attacked by the accused with
bolos. The guilt of the accused also appears confirmed in the
proceedings
of the case by the declarations of four individuals called Tiburcio
Miranda,
Silvino Belleza, Clemente Carlos, and Silvino Sabado, all of them
witnesses
for the defense, who affirm having heard of the robbery, which was
public
in Lubao and other surrounding municipalities.
Of the
five accused,
two of them, Eugenio Lingad and Felix Morales, died during the course
of
the proceedings, and those surviving, called Lorenzo Castro alias
Proceso,
Melencio Jimenez, and Juan Lingad, pleaded "not guilty" when arraigned.
However, the evidence in the case proves clearly that the latter three,
together with the two deceased, are guilty of the crime of robbery "en
cuadrilla," for which they are now prosecuted.
The
eyewitness, Fabian
Diua, who was in charge of the camarin, testified as to the details of
the said robbery, and was able to recognize the five accused, who were
all inhabitants of the same town, since the latter, on breaking
violently
into the camarin, revived the flames of the fire that was burning
there,
in order to light the interior of the said camarin; and if the other
witness,
Victor Maris, who substantially corroborated Diua's testimony, did not
furnish as many details as Diua, it was due to the fact that the
robbers
forced him to lay with his face down on the ground, and covered him
with
a mat, but he affirms to have heard the noise when the robbers broke
the
molds and casks to carry away the sugar that was contained in them.
These
declarations,
each consistent with the other, and all uncontested; the fact that the
stolen carabao was found and recovered in a place not far from the
house
of Lorenzo Castro, and the circumstance that the accused were neighbors
of a suburb of the municipality of Lubao, and that therefore it was
easy
for them to approach the place where the robbery was committed, are all
conclusive proof of the guilt of the accused, notwithstanding the alibi
they pretended to establish, which indeed, has not been duly justified,
since the declarations of the witnesses for the defense refer only to
the
night of the 23rd, the day following that on which the robbery was
committed.
Furthermore, there is a lack of precision and clearness in these
declarations
besides their improbability. But even granting that the day of the
occurrence
was the 23rd, the alibi alleged by the accused can not be considered as
proved, and for this reason it can not be considered as proved, and for
this reason it can not neutralize the result of the evidence against
them.
The
sentence appealed
from should be affirmed. In this judgment the court, considering the
concurrence
of the aggravating circumstance of nocturnity, without any extenuation,
sentenced each one of the accused to nine years of presidio mayor, with
the accessory penalties determined in Article 57 of the Penal Code; to
the restitution of the stolen goods or the payment of their value,
without
being subject to subsidiary imprisonment on account of the character of
the principal penalty, and, furthermore, sentencing each one to the
payment
of one-fifth of the costs. The case was finally dismissed as regards
the
two deceased, with the costs de oficio.
In view,
therefore,
of all considerations stated, We are of opinion that the judgment
appealed
from must be affirmed, with the costs in this instance charged in the
same
way as in the former, and that the case be remanded to the court of its
origin with a certified copy of this decision and of the judgment that
shall be rendered for the execution thereof. So ordered.
Arellano, C.J.,
Mapa, Johnson and Carson, JJ., concur. |