G.R. No. 2364. December 15, 1905

Of the three defendants only Panganiban was convicted in the first
instance and appealed to this court. His two codefendants were
acquitted. The sentence imposed upon Panganiban is ten years’
imprisonment, he having been convicted of the crime of brigandage
defined and punished in section 1 of Act No. 518 of the Philippine
Commission.

We agree with the opinion of the fiscal that the facts proved in the
trial are constitutive of the crime of robbery in a gang, and not of
brigandage as qualified in the judgement appealed from. There is no
evidence that the five individuals who perpetrated the robbery are
members of a band of brigands as defined in the said law of the
Commission.

The appellant did not participate in the execution of the robbery,
either as principal or as accomplice. His participation (intervention)
was after the act and with the sole purpose of profiting from the
effects of the robbery, receiving from the owner of the stolen carabaos
the sum of 100 pesos as a ransom demanded by him as a necessary
(indispensable) condition to the return of the said carabaos. This act,
committed as it was with a knowledge of the perpetration of the
robbery, as we consider proved in the trial, makes the appellant
responsible as accessory of the robbery, in accordance with article 15
of the Penal Code, and there should be imposed upon him the penalty two
degrees below that fixed by the law for the crime (article 68), which
in the present case is the fine of 325 to 6,250 pesetas.

The defense of the appellant in this instance asks for the reopening
of the trial on the ground of newly discovered evidence that in his
judgment conclusively demonstrates the innocence of the defendant. The
alleged newly discovered evidence tends only and exclusively to impeach
fhe testimony of the witness for the prosecution, Ciriaco Lanting. The
defense considers this witness as the only important one in the case.
He is not so, however, nor even is said witness the most important one
presented by the prosecution, as he was only brought in in rebuttal.
Even if the testimony of Lanting should be totally disregarded there
would still remain that of the Chinaman Leandro Uy-Changco and of
Januario Rocamora, who had an understanding with the appellant in
regard to the ransoming of the stolen carabaos and paid him the 100
pesos demanded by him for said purpose. The most important evidence is
that given by these two witnesses rather than that adduced by Lanting
to prove the guilt of the appellant; hence the new evidence ojffered by
the defense lacks decisive influence in the trial, the reopening of
which is therefore useless and wrong in accordance with law.

With reversal of the sentence appealed from, we sentence the
appellant, as accessory to the crime of robbery by a gang, to pay the
fine of 300 pesos, Philippine currency, and to restore the amount of
100 pesos to the Chinaman Leandro Uy-Changco, or in case of his
inability to pay the said amounts to suffer subsidiary imprisonment at
the rate of one day for each 12 pesetas which remains unpaid with the
costs of this instance de oficio. So ordered.

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

---

CONCURRING

WILLARD, J.,:

Based on the judgment rendered in the case of the United States vs. Pedro Abaya,^[1] No. 1821, I concur with the decision in this case.

---

^[1] Not published.