EN BANC
[G.R. No. 1445. March 17, 1904. ]
THE UNITED STATES, Complainant-Appellee, v. MARIANO FELICIANO ET AL., Defendants-Appellants.
Lucio Villareal, for Appellants.
Solicitor-General Araneta, for Appellee.
SYLLABUS
1. CRIMINAL LAW; ROBBERY EN CUADRILLA; BRIGANDAGE. — When it appears that the defendants were inhabitants of the town in which the robbery was committed, and there is no evidence of any agreement between them other than to commit the particular crime in question, the offense committed is robbery en cuadrilla under the Penal Code and not that of brigandage under Act No. 518.
The defendants were prosecuted upon the following information filed by the fiscal of the Province of Rizal:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph
"The undersigned charges Mariano Feliciano, Esperidion Tolentino, Eduardo Pascual, Pablo San Jose, and Doroteo Jose (alias Mateo Tucmot) of the crime of robbery en cuadrilla, committed as follows: On the night of May 25, 1903, the accused, together with several other persons, some of them disguised as members of the insular police, being more than three in number and all armed with guns, revolvers, and knives, assaulted the shop of the Chinamen Oa-Chio and Si-Cuingco, situated in the town of Cardona of this Province of Rizal, Philippine Islands, and for the purpose of gain and by employing intimidation and force, took the money and jewels which were in the said store; this against the statute in the case made and provided."cralaw virtua1aw library
The trial court convicted the defendants of the crime charged, with the aggravating circumstance of nocturnity, and sentenced each of them to ten years of presidio mayor. Against this decision they appealed.
The defendants were prosecuted upon the following information filed by the fiscal of the Province of Rizal:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph
"The undersigned charges Mariano Feliciano, Esperidion Tolentino, Eduardo Pascual, Pablo San Jose, and Doroteo Jose (alias Mateo Tucmot) of the crime of robbery en cuadrilla, committed as follows: On the night of May 25, 1903, the accused, together with several other persons, some of them disguised as members of the insular police, being more than three in number and all armed with guns, revolvers, and knives, assaulted the shop of the Chinamen Oa-Chio and Si-Cuingco, situated in the town of Cardona of this Province of Rizal, Philippine Islands, and for the purpose of gain and by employing intimidation and force, took the money and jewels which were in the said store; this against the statute in the case made and provided."cralaw virtua1aw library
The trial court convicted the defendants of the crime charged, with the aggravating circumstance of nocturnity, and sentenced each of them to ten years of presidio mayor. Against this decision they appealed.
D E C I S I O N
ARELLANO, C.J. :
The facts proved are that the five defendants, at 11 o’clock at night, May 25, 1903, assaulted the store of some Chinamen in the town of Cardona, Rizal, the defendants Feliciano and Tolentino being armed with revolvers and the other three with bolos, and that they robbed the store of 248 pesos and other valuable property.
The five defendants are known to be inhabitants of the town in which the robbery was committed, and did not constitute known band of brigands. There was no agreement between them other than that reached for the particular purpose of committing the crime of robbery in the store of the Chinamen. They were all seen in the town on the day following the robbery. Consequently they are guilty of robbery en cuadrilla, within the meaning of the term as defined by article 505 of the Penal Code, and are liable to the penalty prescribed by article 504 in connection with paragraph 5 of article 503. There was no error in the finding of the court below that the offense was committed with the aggravating circumstance of nocturnity.
We therefore affirm the judgment affirm the judgment appealed by which the defendants were sentenced to ten years of presidio mayor and to the payment of the costs in equal parts, and impose upon them the additional obligation of the return of the money and property robbed, with the consequent accessory penalties, with the payment of the costs of this instance in the same proportion.
Cooper, Mapa and McDonough, JJ., concur.
TORRES, WILLARD and JOHNSON, JJ., dissenting:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library
We are of the opinion that the crime should be classed as brigandage and the defendants convicted in accordance with the provisions of section 1 Act No. 518, for the reasons stated in the dissenting opinion in the case of the United States v. Francisco Decusin, 1 1 Official Gazette, No. 57, published October 7, 1903. See also the decision in the case of the United States v. Pedro Maano Et. Al., 2 Official Gazette, No. 3, published January 20, 1904. 2
The five defendants are known to be inhabitants of the town in which the robbery was committed, and did not constitute known band of brigands. There was no agreement between them other than that reached for the particular purpose of committing the crime of robbery in the store of the Chinamen. They were all seen in the town on the day following the robbery. Consequently they are guilty of robbery en cuadrilla, within the meaning of the term as defined by article 505 of the Penal Code, and are liable to the penalty prescribed by article 504 in connection with paragraph 5 of article 503. There was no error in the finding of the court below that the offense was committed with the aggravating circumstance of nocturnity.
We therefore affirm the judgment affirm the judgment appealed by which the defendants were sentenced to ten years of presidio mayor and to the payment of the costs in equal parts, and impose upon them the additional obligation of the return of the money and property robbed, with the consequent accessory penalties, with the payment of the costs of this instance in the same proportion.
Cooper, Mapa and McDonough, JJ., concur.
Separate Opinions
TORRES, WILLARD and JOHNSON, JJ., dissenting:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library
We are of the opinion that the crime should be classed as brigandage and the defendants convicted in accordance with the provisions of section 1 Act No. 518, for the reasons stated in the dissenting opinion in the case of the United States v. Francisco Decusin, 1 1 Official Gazette, No. 57, published October 7, 1903. See also the decision in the case of the United States v. Pedro Maano Et. Al., 2 Official Gazette, No. 3, published January 20, 1904. 2
Endnotes:
1. 2 Phil. Rep., 536.
2. 2 Phil. Rep., 718.
