G. R No. 3621. July 26, 1907

These defendants were charged in the Court of First Instance of the Province of Cavite with having committed the crime of bandolerismo, as follows:

“That the said Macario Sakay, Francisco  Carreon, Julian Montalan, Leon Villafuerte, Lucio  de Vega,  Benito Natividad, Justiniano Ramos, Vicente  Giron,  Filomeno Peroy, Isabelo Despida, Felix  Estacio, and Gregorio Porto,in and during the years  1902, 1903, 1904, 1905, and 1906,voluntarily, illegally, and criminally, organized bands of ladrones, in which organizations the said Macario Sakay was known as president, Francisco  Carreon as vice-president, Julian Montalan and Leon Villafuerte as generals, Lucio de Vega as colonel,  Benito Natividad, Justiniano Ramos, and Vicente Giron as majors; that the said bands of landrones were  each composed of more than three persons, armed with deadly weapons,  and were organized by  the accused for the stealing of carabaos, cattle, horses, rice, and any other kind of personal property,  and  for the detention of persons for extortion and ransom and for other purposes, by means of force and violence; that the said bands of ladrones, organized, commanded,  and directed by  the said accused, performed each and all of the aforementioned acts in the Provinces of Cavite, Batangas, Laguna, Rizal, and Bulacan; and that more especially they detained, tortured, mutilated, and purposely and treacherously killed some of  the inhabitants of  the  said provinces.  That  the said accused, each and every one of them, cooperated and associated with said armed  ladrones when the said bands operated  under  their command and performed  the acts above related.  All against the statute in such cases made and provided.”

These defendants were duly arraigned upon the 17th day of September, 1906,  and each pleaded “not guilty” of  the crime charged in the said complaint.

At the commencement of. the trial the prosecuting  attorney of said province, under section 34 of General Orders, No. 58, requested that the said cause be dismissed against Justiniano Ramos and Vicente  Giron, in order that they might be used as witnesses for the Government, which request was granted  by the court, the cause of action pending against these two defendants was dismissed and they were given their liberty.

At the same time the prosecuting attorney of said province asked that  Francisco Carreon be transferred to  the Court of First Instance of the city of Manila for trial,  for the reason that said Court of First Instance of the Province of Cavite did not have jurisdiction over the crime alleged to have been  committed by the said Carreon.  This motion was granted, and the said Carreon was ordered to be transferred to the Court of First Instance of the city of Manila for trial.

The cause then proceeded  against the other said defendants each day until the 21st day of  September, 1906, when the attorneys for the defendants petitioned the  court to permit the defendants to withdraw their former plea of “not-guilty,” presented by them at the  time  of their  arraignment, and to permit them to plead “guilty” to the facts charged in the said  complaint.  This  request was granted by the court, basing his conclusion upon the provisions of section 25 of General Orders, No.  58, and the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of United States vs. Molo¹ (4 Off.  Gaz., 57), and each of the defendants thereupon was permitted to make a full statement relating to his plea of guilt.   (Record, pp.  133-155.)

At the close of the trial in the Court of First Instance, and after a consideration of the evidence adduced prior to the  time that  the  defendants plead “guilty” to the acts charged in said complaint, and a consideration of their plea of “guilty,” the  court found each of the said defendants guilty of the crime charged therein and sentenced Macario Sakay,  Julian Montalan, Leon Villafuerte, and Lucio de Vega to the penalty of death,  Benito  Natividad to be imprisoned for a period of thirty years, and Filomeno Peroy, Isabelo  Despida, Felix Estacio, and Gregorio Porto to be imprisoned for a period of  twenty years  and each one to pay a  proportional amount of the costs of the trial.

From this  sentence of the lower court the said Macario Sakay,  Julian  Montalan,  Leon Villafuerte, and Lucio de Vega appealed to the Supreme Court.

The lower  court, after  hearing  the evidence,  made the following findings of fact in its decision:

“(a)  That the said accused since the  year 1902 until their surrender in May  and June,  1906, organized several bands of more than three persons supplied with firearms and  other weapons, in which bands the accused, Macario Sakay,  was  known as  president, Julian Montalan  and Leon Villafuerte as generals, Lucio de Vega as colonel, Benito Natividad as major, and  the said Filomeno Peroy, Isabelo  Despida, Felix Estacio, and Gregorio  Porto as members or privates;  and,

“(b)  That the members of the  bands  under  the command of the said  chiefs, armed  with deadly “weapons,roamed over  the country and through  the towns of the Provinces of  Cavite, Laguna, Batangas, Rizal, and Bulacan, committing robberies, assaulting the pueblos in order to attack and capture the arms of the Constabulary and municipal police, sacking  municipal  treasuries, detaining persons, and mutilating their lips and cutting the tendons of the feet, and murdering  municipal government officials.”

Of course in addition to these facts, the defendants, by their plea of “guilty” admitted to all of the facts charged in said complaint.

A careful reading of the record brought to this court is sufficient to  convince  us,  in  the absence of  the plea  of “guilty” on the part of the defendants, that they and each of them were guilty of the crime charged in said complaint.

In the explanation given by the appellants in  this cause at the time they changed their plea of “not guilty” to that of “guilty,” they attempted to show that while  they were guilty of the acts charged in said complaint, whatever they did was done from a patriotic  motive and in defense  of the rights of the people of their country.   With reference to this patriotic motive on the part of the defendants, we will allow “Exhibit J” (folio of record, 180), introduced by the prosecution during the trial of said cause, to explain:

“Upon receipt of this order, please comply with the same and direct the troops to enter the town of Teresa and carry out the following:

” (1)  Seize all foods, such as palay, which you can carry, also take the  money in order to defray the expenses of our soldiers and the war.

“(2)  Arrest the concejal Memimino  Grebillos, and all persons concerned with him in detaining our commissioners and as soon as arrested you will  punish them as provided in Order No. 9,  of April  10, 1904, prescribing that the tendon achilles shall be cut and the fingers of both hands crushed.

“(3)  Should the  townspeople  offer  resistance to the troops, burn all the houses, without showing mercy to the inhabitants.

“All the provisions of this letter have been passed on by the supreme junta, on account of the” treacherous conduct of the inhabitants of Teresa toward our commissioners.

(Signed)  “MACARIO  SAKAY.

“P. S.—In  this connection I  would warn you that before entering the town of Teresa a plan must be devised  so as not to expose our soldiers.”

Another letter which was introduced in evidence, known as “Exhibit N” (record, p. 186), signed by Macario Sakay, also demonstrates the humane purpose  which he had in organizing the band which was called  in the complaint “bandits” and who were charged in the complaint with the crime of bandolerismo.  Said letter is as follows:

“Major Ramos :

“Your  letter  reporting  the result of your  expedition received in this office.  “Upon  receipt of  this letter, direct Captain Franca to take away Francisco Rosalia and Faustino Custodio  and cut the tendons of their feet and crush the fingers of their hands.  Do not fail  to obey this order, otherwise you  will be held responsible for noncompliance therewith, because they are traitors to our government.   Sultan is major but he is a secret service agent and so is Faustino.

“This punishment shall be carried out in the presence of those married persons who are to be released, and enroll and administer  the oath of fidelity  to  such  as  are  not enlisted.  Also administer  the  oath to those that  are ordered released and cause a list of their names  to be captured by the enemy, so that it may be known that they are members of the army.

“God be with you.

“November 14,1905.

(Signed)  “MACARIO SAKAY.”

This court has frequently held that, notwithstanding the fact that men are organized under the guise of a military establishment, if they are actually and notoriously engaged in robbery and pillage, such band or members of the same may be convicted of the crime of brigandage.   (U. S. vs.Guinacaran et al., 1 Off. Gaz., 871, 2 Phil. Rep., 551; XL S.vs. Cervantes,  2 Off.  Gaz., 170, 3 Phil. Rep., 221.)
In this court the appellants assign as error the following:

(1) That the lower court committed an error in taking into consideration the evidence introduced in said cause.

(2) That the lower court erred in not taking into consideration the mitigating circumstance  mentioned in article 11 of the Penal Code.

(3) That the lower court erred in applying the penalty of death in place of imprisonment, violating paragraph 10 of section 5 of “The Philippine Bill” of July 1, 1902.

(4) That the court erred in condemning the appellants to the penalty of death without due  process of law, violating paragraph 1 of section 5 of the Philippine Bill.

After  the prosecuting attorney had presented  the testimony of twenty-one witnesses, each of the said defendants asked permission to withdraw his  former  plea of  “not guilty” and to be permitted to plead “guilty” to the crime charged  in said complaint.  At the same time the attorneys for the defendants  requested the court not to take into consideration the evidence adduced for the  purpose of his conclusion.  In other words, the attorneys for the defendants desired that the court should impose the penalty provided for by law upon their plea of “guilty” simply.  The lower court refused to do so, and, in  reaching a conclusion with  reference to the penalty which should be imposed upon the defendants, took into consideration the testimony adduced.   This the lower court had  a perfect right to do. Had the defendants pleaded “guilty” in the first instance the court might even then, in its discretion, have examined witnesses for the purpose of ascertaining the degree of punishment  to be imposed.   (U. S. vs. Talbanos,¹ 4 Off. Gaz..,695.)

The second  assignment of error, to wit:  That the court refused to  take into consideration the mitigating circumstance of article 11  of the Penal Code is equally without merit.  The defendant, Macario Sakay, assumed  the title of “supreme president of the Tagalog Isles;” Julian Montalan was  appointed a  lieutenant-general in the  army of the said president;  Leon Villafuerte was appointed a brigadier-general by said president, and Lucio de Vega was also known as a general.  Each  of  these defendants,  according to  the evidence, was in charge of separate bands of said bandits.  Certainly the attorneys for the defendants did not consult them when  they asked the  court to apply the provisions of article 11 of the Penal  Code  to them; at least the lower court committed no error in refusing to so apply said article, for the reason that the provisions of the Penal Code,  relating to extenuating and mitigating circumstances have  no application  to crimes created by the Philippine Commission.

With reference to the third and  fourth assignment of error, we find nothing in the record or in the decision of the court below which shows that the lower court in anyway violated any of the provisions of section 5 of the Act of Congress of July 1, 1902.

The attorneys  for the appellants argue that, inasmuch as the defendants presented themselves to the authorities, this should be taken into consideration  in  reducing  the sentence from that of death  to that of  imprisonment. It is true that the defendants did  present themselves to  the authorities.  However, no promise of leniency was made to them by those in authority at that time.   They were given expressly to understand  that no promise of  leniency was made to them by anyone in authority; they presented themselves unconditionally,  without  any  promise of leniency whatever, except that they would not be shot upon their surrender, but that they would be guaranteed an equitable and just trial.  (U. S. ‘vs. Unselt, 4 Off. Gaz., 612; 6 Phil.Rep., 456.)

The attorneys  for the defendants argue in their brief that this court should take into consideration the fact that they surrendered themselves voluntarily, and reduce  the penalty imposed by the lower court.   We are of the opinion that we have no authority to do this. If any  clemency should be exercised in  favor of the defendants for this voluntary act on their part, it should be done by the executive  branch  of the Government.

The attorneys for the defendants argue that the lower court committed  an error in not giving them  at least twenty-four hours after arraignment to answer to the complaint.  It is time that section 19 of General Orders, No.  58, gives the defendant the right, on  arraignment, to require a reasonable time, not less than one day, to answer the complaint or information.  It is also true, in the present case, that the lower court refused to give them this one day in which to answer.  The attorneys for the defendants, however, expressly renounced the right to present any dilatory exceptions, and four days after the commencement” of the trial and after they had had ample time to examine the complaint,  each  one of them  voluntarily withdrew  his plea of “not guilty” and asked the court for permission to plead “guilty” to the  said  complaint; the error of  the court, therefore, if there were any,  could  not in any  way have prejudiced them.

The record  fully discloses that each of the defendants was a chief and organizer of bands of  bandits and that, therefore, the punishment imposed by the lower court was entirely justified by law.   (U. S. vs. Oruga,1 5 Off. Gaz.,161.)

After a full consideration of all the facts presented  to this court, Ave are of the opinion that the sentence of the lower court should be affirmed, and it is so ordered, with costs.

Arellano, C. J., Torres, Willard, and Tracey, JJ., concur.

---

¹ 5 Phil. Rep., 412.
¹ 6. Phil. Rep., 541