G.R. No. 1669. January 04, 1905

Please log in to request a case brief.

4 Phil. 106

[ G.R. No. 1669. January 04, 1905 ]




The appellant, together with Mariano Bulos and Isaac Rance, was
charged with the crime of insurrection. These three individuals having
each been sentenced by the Court of First Instance to the penalty of
two years’ imprisonment and two hundred dollars fine, Evangelista was
the only one who appealed, and for this reason the judgment of the
Court of First Instance became final for the other two defendants.

The appellant is charged with having assisted and given food, in the
barrio of Matiquio of the municipality of Paquil, to a band of ladrones
under the command of Macario Sakay, so-called president of the
Philippine republic, and Fidel Noble, secretary of war of the same, and
to one Mateo Angeles and Aniceto Maristela, without reporting the fact
afterwards to the proper authorities.

These facts, although they may be true, would not be sufficient to
convict the defendant of the crime of insurrection, since it is not
stated in the complaint that the band to which the said defendant gave
aid and food was a band devoted to abetting, promoting, or aiding any
rebellion or insurrection against the authority of the United States or
the Government of the Philippine Islands, or the laws thereof, or that
the said band was engaged in any rebellion or insurrection, which is a
requisite according to section 3 of Act No. 292. The statement
contained in the complaint that Macario Sakay and Fidel Noble, in
command of said band, are the president and secretary of war,
respectively, of the so-called Philippine republic, is not in itself
sufficient to cure that omission. As the prosecution says in its
written argument, this does not involve the affirmation that they are
insurgents. So true is this that the complaint itself does not call
them insurgents, but ladrones.

The complaint, therefore, is insufficient to hold the appellant for
the crime for which he has been sentenced by the Court of First
Instance, and for this reason it can not be sustained.

Besides, it is not proved in any way that the appellant committed
the crime with which he is charged in the complaint. No one testifies
that he either gave food or assistance of any kind to the band of Sakay
or Noble. The only fact which has been proved is that the defendant who
was a municipal councilor representing the barrio of Matiquio, saw
Mateo Angeles there. But it is likewise proven that the defendant
immediately reported that fact to the municipal president of the said
town. Further-more, it is not established that Mateo Angeles is known
as an insurgent in the said barrio, where he appeared, according to the
defendant, as a member of the Constabulary and with the uniform of such

And if it is further taken into account that Aniceto Maristela, “one
of those to whom the defendant gave aid,” as the complaint says,
explicity denies this fact, adding that he does not know the defendant,
and that he had never been in the barrio of Matiquio, we must
necessarily arrive at the conclusion that there is no proof as to the
certainty of the facts alleged by the prosecution.

In view of the foregoing statement, we reverse the judgment appealed
from and entirely acquit the defendant, with the costs in both
instances de oficio. So ordered.

Arellano, C. J., Torres, Johnson, and Carson, JJ., concur.

Date created: April 23, 2014


Leave a Reply

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

Apply Filters