G.R. No. 1498. February 24, 1904

The defendant was accused of brigandage by the provincial fiscal of
Cebu, in a complaint dated July 23, 1903, wherein it was stated that
after the 12th of November, 1902, and prior to the date of the
complaint, Cabuenas had formed a numerous party of bandits in the
barrio of Inagauan, of the pueblo of Talisay in said island, for the
purpose of robbing carabaos and other personal property by means of
force and violence, and that he led said party under the title of
captain-general, and that he and his partisans, armed with deadly
weapons, had been wandering through the mountains of Talisay and of
Pardo, and that the defendant feloniously received property stolen by
said band, and furnished it with provisions, clothing, arms, and
ammunition, contrary to the law.

The complaint having been filed and the case called for trial, from
the evidence adduced thereat it appears that Martin Cabuenas in
Talisay, Cebu, organized a numerous party of malefactors, altogether
about 200 persons, of whom he constituted himself the leader with the
title of captain-general, and that they, armed with bolos and
revolvers, had been wandering over the country and through the
mountains of the pueblo of Talisay and Pardo, and had engaged in
robbing money, carabaos, and maize, besides committing other outrages
against the residents of said towns and the agents of the Government.
This is all shown by the testimony of the witnesses Agustin Cabunales,
Ambrosio Bacalso, Gregorio Abapo, Melquiades Lasala, Mateo Luga
(lieutenant of Constabulary), Graciano Nadela, Pedro Sabillano, Miguel
Bacalso, Meliton Canizares, Patricio Mosqueda, Graciano Ragasa,
Bartolome Tabora, Vicente Badayos, Pedro Nadela, Juan Base Villarrosa
(justice of the peace of Cebu), Juan Climaco (governor of the
province), Juan Capalan, Benigno Timno, Luis Mabazo, and Olimpio
Deiparine (municipal president of Talisay). The last-named witness was
the one who arrested the accused with the aid of two volunteers. It is
to be observed that some of the witnesses above mentioned had been
watching the residence of the accused, by order of the authorities, for
the purpose of determining liis conduct and character.

According to the testimony of Graciano Nadela, one of the companions
of the accused, when the party was organized in Manduang, pueblo of
Minglanilla, the accused demanded money, under threats and ill
treatment, from one Botoy, who on this account died in May, 1903. The
witness Graciano Ilagasa testified that when he was sequestered with
three other policemen by the partisans of the accused, his companions
and he were disarmed, and that their captors then went to the house of
Pablo Cabellon in Inagauan, and as the latter resisted them he was
wounded with a bolo by the accused, although not seriously.

Mateo Luga, a lieutenant of Constabulary, exhibited a document which
appears on page 74 of the record, signed by the accused, which said
document was found in the pocket of a person who died in a fight which
the Constabulary had with some malefactors in Jacupan, in the town of
Talisay, on the afternoon of July 27, 1903, which document is a
lieutenant’s commission. Governor Climaco testified that the signature
appended to the document exhibited was that of Martin Cabuenas, he
being familiar with thts handwriting of the accused, and that the
latter called himself first master, because the supreme chief was
Roberto Caballero (record, p. 72). On page 75 of the record there
appear the cedulas which the defendant distributed.

The facts above stated unquestionably constitute the crime of
brigandage, comprised in section 1 of Act No. 518, of November 12, 1902.

It appears perfectly established in the case that the accused, after
having organized a numerous band of ladrones, assumed the command of
said party, and he, as well as the other members thereof, being armed
with deadly weapons, engaged in the robbery of carabaos, provisions,
and especially of money, which at different times of the day and night
they demanded from the people under threats of death and by means of
ill treatment and other personal outrages; that they also took the arms
of several policemen whom they sequestered, and that they wandered
over the fields and mountains of said towns committing the acts of
violence and pillage which mark them as brigands.

Consequently the defendant lias incurred some of the penalties
prescribed in said section, and according to the opinion of the court
that of life imprisonment should be imposed. The death of Botoy can not
be considered as fully established, and much less that of Pablo
Cabellon, who, according to the witnesses, was only wounded, and that
not seriously.

For the reasons stated we are of the opinion that the decision of
the court below must be reversed, and the accused, Martin Cabuenas,
sentenced to the penalty of life imprisonment and the costs. The case
will be remanded to the court below, with a copy of this decision and
of the judgment to be entered therein, for execution.

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

---

WILLARD, J.:

In my opinion the decision of the Court of First Instance should be affirmed and the defendant sentenced to death.

---

JOHNSON, J.:

The defendant is charged with the crime of bandolerismo, as follows:

That in the month of July, 1903, in the barrio of Inagauan, of the
pueblo of Talisay, of the Province of Cebu, he formed a band composed
of more than three persons with the object of robbing carabaos and
other personal property by means of force and violence; that the said
accused was the chief of the said band, with the title of
“captain-general;” that the said band went out upon the highways, armed
with deadly weapons, with the object of robbing carabaos and other
personal property.

During the trial of the case many witnesses were presented on behalf of the prosecution.

The testimony of Agustin Cabunales shows that the accused was the
head of a band composed of a large number of men; that the accused or
his men had sequestered the said witness and had demanded of him money;
and because the said witness was unable to comply with the said demands
of the accused, he was detained in the house of the accused and was
manacled and illtreated; that the accused threatened to kill the
witness; that the companions of the accused were armed and went upon
the highways armed with bolos and pinutis.

The testimony of Ambrosio Bacalso shows that the defendant and his
soldiers compelled him to give them money and threatened to arrest him
if he refused to comply with their wishes.

The testimony of Gregorio Abapo shows that the companions of the
accused, under the orders of the accused, had compelled him to pay them
money; that because of fear and of their threats he paid the money.

The testimony of Olimpio Deiparine shows that he was president of
the pueblo of Talisay; that the accused ordered him to surrender his
authority to him and his soldiers ; that the accused was at the head of
a band of armedmen; that the band was armed with bolos and pinutis.

The testimony of Melquiades Lasala shows that he was chief of police
of the pueblo of Talisay; that he knew the accused, and had known him
for a long time, and that he was the leader of a band of men located in
one of the barrios of the pueblo of Talisay, and that said band was
armed and was engaged in robbery.

The testimony of Mateo Luga shows that he was a member of the
Constabulary; that he knew the accused; that the accused was at the
head of an armed band and that the object of the accused and his band
was to demand money of the people.

The testimony of Graciano Nadela shows that he was a policeman; that
he had known the accused; that he had been in the house of the accused;
that the accused had said to him that he was the head and leader of a
band of about 200 men; that the accused was called “general” by the
members of the band; that the band was armed with bolos and pinutis;
that the band maintained itself by robbing money and carabaos and by
compelling the people to pay contributions; that the band had menaced
one Botoy until they killed him; that the people had left the place
where the band was located because of the fear they had for the accused
and his band.

The testimony of Pedro Sabillano shows that he had been acquainted
with the defendant for a long time; that he “was in the house of the
accused and saw many armed men there.

The testimony of Meliton Cañizares shows that he had known the
accused and that he had seen the accused in charge of a band of about
200 armed men; that the men were armed with bolos and pinutis.

The testimony of Patricio Mosqueda shows that he was a member of the
Constabulary and had known the defendant for a long time; that he
visited the quarters of the accused as a spy and saw many armed men
there.

The testimony of Graciano Ragasa shows that he, together with two
others, had been sequestered by the accused and his band, and compelled
to go with them; that they
followed this band until they arrived at
the house of one Pablo Cabellon, where the band was engaged in a fight
with the said Pablo, and the witness and his two companions escaped.

The testimony of Bartolome Tabora shows that he was a municipal
policeman and was one of the companions of Graciano Ragasa at the time
he was sequestered; that the accused was with the band on that occasion
and was armed with a revolver; that the band took his arms from him.

The testimony of Vicente Badayos shows that he was a companion of
Graciano Ragasa and Bartolome Tabora at the time they were sequestered
by the accused and his band and his testimony agrees with the
statements of the two others. He says that the band was armed and that
there was a fight between the members of the band and the said Pablo.

The testimony of Juan Base Villarrosa shows that he was a justice of
the peace and that the accused had told him on one occasion that he was
the captain-general.

The testimony of Juan Climaco shows that he was the governor of the
Province of Cebu; that he knew the accused and knew that the accused
was at the head of the pulahans; that he had seen a document signed by
the accused in which that fact appeared in connection with the
signature of the said accused.

The accused offered no proof in defense.

After hearing and
considering the evidence in the said cause, the judge found the
defendant guilty of the crime charged in the complaint, and sentenced
him to the penalty of death.

The evidence given in the trial of the cause against the accused justifies the following conclusions:

First. That prior to the 1st day of July, 1903, and subsequent to
the 12th day of November, 1902, there existed in the Province of Cebu
an armed band, composed of more
than 200 men, who conspired together for the purpose of robbing carabaos and other personal property.

Second. That the said band was armed with deadly weapons, and went
out upon the highways in said province and roamed over the country and
did rob carabaos and
other personal property.

Third. That the said defendant was known as a captain-general and was the leader of the said band.

Fourth. That while he was acting as the leader of the said band,
between the said dates, he had directed and caused the death of one
Pablo Cabellon, and the robbery
of carabaos and other personal property in the said Province of Cebu, in the Philippine Islands.

This court has, in numerous cases, punished members of bands like
the one proven to have existed in this case, by sentencing them to long
terms of imprisonment, ranging from twenty to forty years, and in some
instances to life imprisonment.

I can not bring myself to believe that this court is consistent with
itself and its former decisions when it imposes upon the leader of
these bands the same imprisonment which is imposed upon the members of
the band who are mere tools of such leaders, and who, perhaps, are
members of such bands by reason of fear and coercion.

The facts found by the trial court fully justify its conclusions and
the sentence imposed upon the defendant in this cause. It should be a
rule of practice in this court that when it finds the facts upon which
the court below rendered its judgment to be true and sufficient to
sustain the judgment, the terms of the judgment should not be changed in this court.

Therefore, by virtue of the evidence adduced in this cause, and the
provisions of section 1 of Act No. 518 of the Civil Commission, the
judgment of the court below should be affirmed.