G.R. No. 2203. February 28, 1905

The defendant was charged with the crime of bandolerismo and was sentenced by the judge of the Court of First Instance of the Province of Ambos Camarines to twenty years imprisonment (de presidio), and to pay the costs. The defendant appealed from said decision to this court.

The attorney appointed for said defendant de oficio to represent him in this court presents two objections why said sentence should not be affirmed by this court, as follows:

(1) That the complaint is insufficient; and

(2) That the proof is insufficient to support the sentence imposed.

The complaint alleges—

“That the defendant during a period after the 12th day of November,
1902, conspired with more than three persons and formed a band of
ladrones in the mountains of Buhi, of the Province of Ambos Camarines,
with the object of stealing carabaos and other personal property by
means of force and violence, and went out on the highways and roamed
over the country, armed with deadly weapons, for the purpose of
stealing carabaos and other personal property, contrary to law.”

The attorney for the defense alleges that the complaint is
insufficient for the reason that it does not comply with the
requirements of paragraph 3 of section 6 of General Orders, No. 58.

Paragraph 3 of section 6 of said order provides that a complaint or
information is sufficient if it shows “the acts or omissions complained
of as constituting the crime or public offense in ordinary and concise
language, without repetition, not necessarily in the words of the
statute but in such form as to enable a person of common understanding
to know what is intended and the court to pronounce judgment according
to right.”

The complaint filed in this case charged the commission of the offense of bandolerismo
substantially in the language of the statute. Said paragraph 3 implies
that a complaint will be sufficient if it charges the crime in the
language of the statute. It says that the complaint need not
necessarily be “in the words of the statute,” implying that it would be
sufficient if the crime were set out in the language of the statute.

Offenses created by statute, as well as offenses at common law, must
be accurately and clearly described in the complaint. No complaint,
whether for a statutory crime or a crime at common law, will be held to
be good if it does not accurately and clearly allege all of the
ingredients of which the offense is composed. In other words, the
complaint must state all the facts and circumstances which go to make
up the offense as defined in the statute or by the common law so as to
bring the defendant precisely within it. The statute defining bandolerismo makes the following facts necessary to constitute the crime:

(1)There must be three or more persons.

(2)These
persons must conspire together for the purpose of forming a band of
robbers for the purpose of stealing carabaos or other personal property
by means of force and violence.

(3) They must go out upon
the highway and roam over the country armed with deadly weapons for the
purpose of stealing carabaos or other personal property. (Act No. 518
as amended by Act No. 1121.)

The complaint alleges—

(1) That the defendant, with two or more persons,
conspired together to form a band of ladrones in the mountains of Buhi,
Province of Ambos Camarines.

(2) That the defendant and his
companions formed such conspiracy for the purpose of stealing carabaos
and other personal property by means of force and violence.

(3) That the defendant and his coconspirators went out upon the highways and roamed over the country armed with deadly weapons.

A complaint will be sufficient if it describes the offense in the
language of the statute whenever the statute contains all of the
essential elements constituting the particular offense. Of course it
need not be stated that the names of the parties and the time and place
of the commission of the offense must also be alleged in connection
with the description of the offense. The complaint in said cause is
substantially in the language of the statute defining and punishing bandolerismo, and the said statute contains all of the essential elements necessary to constitute the crime of bandolerismo. The complaint is therefore sufficient.

The attorney for the defendant alleges further that the evidence is
insufficient to support the complaint. An examination of the evidence
adduced during the trial of the cause fails to show that the defendant
and his companions had conspired together for the purpose of stealing
carabaos and other personal property. Neither does the evidence show
that the defendant and his companions had gone out on the highways and
roamed over the country for this purpose. Not only must the complaint
describe all of the essential elements constituting the crime )but the
proof adduced during the trial in order to convict the defendant of the
crime charged must be sufficient to sustain such allegation. This court
has, in numerous decisions, presumed that persons who were charged with
the crime of bandolerismo had conspired together for the
purpose of stealing carabaos and other personal property from the fact
that they had gone out upon the highways and roamed over the country
armed with deadly weapons and had actually stolen carabaos and other
personal property. In this case the evidence is not sufficient to
justify the court in reaching such a conclusion.

It is the judgment of this court, therefore, that the evidence
adduced during the trial of said cause is not sufficient to support the
charges, and the sentence of the lower court is therefore reversed and
the defendant is hereby dismissed from the custody of the law, with
costs de oficio. So ordered.

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