G.R. No. 2169. May 01, 1905

Please log in to request a case brief.

4 Phil. 529

[ G.R. No. 2169. May 01, 1905 ]




Of the three defendants only Julian Aquino appealed from the
judgment rendered by the Court of First Instance, Catalino Vecina,
sentenced to the same penalty as the former, accepted said judgment,
and Pedro Villareal was acquitted of the charges. The penalty imposed
on the appellant is that of three years eight months and one day of presidio correccional,
the medium degree of that provided for in paragraph 5 of article 503 of
the Penal Code, which the judge considered applicable to the facts in
the case.

We declare the robbery in the complaint sufficiently proven and that
the appellant took direct participation therein. The considerations of
these facts made by the judge in the judgment apealed from conforms to
the merits of the case, and the legal qualification of the crime as
robbery is likewise in accordance with the law and with the provisions
of the Penal Code above cited, which has been applied to the facts in
this case. The judge found that the robbery was committed in an
uninhabited place. We are of the opinion that the existence of this
aggravating circumstance, has not been fully proven, taking into
consideration the testimony of a witness for the prosecution that there
is a house at the place of the occurrence; nor do we find any
circumstance to consider in favor of the defendant, as was done by the
judge below in regard to the circumstance of race established in
article 11 of the Penal Code, considering the character of the crime.
Therefore, without any aggravating or extenuating circumstance to
consider in the case, the penalty imposed on the appellant of the
medium degree of that provided for the crime charged is in accordance
with the provisions of the law. The defense alleges that the complaint
is insufficient to charge the crime of robbery because it does not
state that the money which is said to have been stolen belonged to
another person—that is to say, that it did not belong to the
defendants. This allegation has no foundation in law. The complaint
states that-

“The defendants took possession of 10.75 pesos which Antonio Barcenas carried and of 8.25 pesos which Andres Rabong carried, with the intention of profiting thereby and with intimidation of the persons.”

By this it is implied that the money of which the defendants took
possession was not their property, because the law says he is
considered the rightful owner of the money which he possesses until the
contrary is shown. Section 6 of General Orders, No. 58, establishes

“It is not necessary to use in the complaint the
exact words of the law, but it is sufficient that it be set forth in
such manner that a person of ordinary intelligence can understand what
is meant and so the court may rule in accordance with the law.”

The complaint in this case fills these requirements and, therefore, is sufficient under the law.

We affirm the judgment appealed from, the defendant being credited
toward the fulfillment of this sentence with one-half of the time he
shall have remained in prison, for the reason that the value of the
money stolen does not exceed 100 pesetas and the penalty imposed on him
is correctional, declaring the costs in this instance against the
defendant. So ordered.

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

Date created: April 24, 2014


Leave a Reply

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

Apply Filters