G.R. No. 1445. March 17, 1904

Please log in to request a case brief.

3 Phil. 422

[ G.R. No. 1445. March 17, 1904 ]

THE UNITED STATES, COMPLAINANT AND APPELLEE, VS. MARIANO FELICIANO ET AL., DEFENDANTS AND APPELLANTS.

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 a 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 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.


DISSENTING

TORRES, WILLARD, and JOHNSON, JJ.

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 of Act No. 518, for the reasons stated in the dissenting
opinion in the case of the United States vs. Francisco Decusin,[1] 1 Official Gazette, No. 57, published October 7,1903. See also the decision in the case of the United States vs. Pedro Maano et al., 2 Official Gazette, No. 3, published January 20, 1904.[2]



[1] 2 Phil. Rep., 536

[2] 2 Phil. Rep., 718






Date created: January 18, 2019




Comments

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Post
Filter
Apply Filters