GR 4500; (September, 1908) (Digest)
THE UNITED STATES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. MARCELO AQUINO, ET AL., defendants-appellants.
September 8, 1908
FACTS:
Appellants Marcelo Aquino and Toribio Limos were charged with robbery in an armed band (robo en cuadrilla). The information alleged that on April 10, 1907, at 2 AM, in Luna, La Union, the accused, with other unknown individuals, willfully, illegally, feloniously, and with arms, entered the dwelling of Bonifacia Raso. Using violence and intimidation, they took personal property of Doroteo Barroso and Bonifacia Raso, valued at 2,338 pesetas. Doroteo Barroso was bound and thrown face down. The information stated these acts constituted offenses punished under Article 503, No. 5 of the Penal Code.
The Court of First Instance convicted both appellants of robbery in an armed band and sentenced them to nine years of presidio mayor, including accessory penalties, restitution of stolen goods or their value, and costs.
Appellants raised four grounds for appeal: (1) lack of preliminary investigation; (2) absence of arraignment or formal plea; (3) defective information failing to specifically charge robo en cuadrilla; and (4) insufficient evidence to establish their identity.
The record showed that while initial preliminary complaints were dismissed, a subsequent preliminary investigation based on the fiscal’s information was conducted by the justice of the peace of San Fernando, who found probable cause. The record also explicitly stated the accused pleaded not guilty upon arraignment during the second trial.
ISSUE:
1. Did the trial court err by proceeding without a valid preliminary investigation, or without a formal arraignment and plea?
2. Was the information defective for failing to specifically charge the crime of robbery in an armed band (robo en cuadrilla)?
3. Was the evidence sufficient to establish the identity of the appellants and prove all elements of robbery in an armed band (robo en cuadrilla)?
RULING:
The Court ruled:
1. NO, on preliminary investigation and arraignment.
The appellants were in fact accorded a preliminary investigation by the justice of the peace of San Fernando based on the information filed by the provincial fiscal. The Court held that any defects in these preliminary proceedings were waived because no objection was raised by the accused at the preliminary hearing or during the trial. The right to a preliminary investigation is waivable.
The claim of no arraignment was disproven by the record, which explicitly stated that the accused pleaded not guilty upon arraignment during the second trial.
2. NO, on defective information.
The information clearly charged that the accused (three in number) “in company with others unknown, entered with arms the house of Bonifacio Raso,” which was deemed sufficient to allege the elements of robbery. The argument regarding defects in earlier, dismissed complaints was irrelevant.
3. YES, the evidence was insufficient to prove robo en cuadrilla, but sufficient for simple robbery.
The Court found the identification of the appellants by the witness Paula Costes to be “conclusive and satisfactory.”
However, the evidence failed to establish that the gang was composed of more than three armed persons, as the witnesses only saw three members inside the house, with others remaining outside. This element is crucial for a conviction of robo en cuadrilla (robbery in an armed band).
Therefore, the judgment of the trial court convicting the appellants of robbery in an armed band was reversed.
The Court found both appellants guilty of simple robbery as defined in paragraph 5 of Article 503 of the Penal Code, committed at night and in the dwelling of the offended party. These facts were considered aggravating circumstances.
There being no extenuating circumstances, the penalty prescribed in Article 503, paragraph 5, was imposed in its maximum degree. The nine years of presidio mayor originally imposed by the trial court fell within the limits of this maximum degree.
The Court noted that while the evidence might have sustained a finding for robbery penalized under Article 508 (which carries a higher penalty for robbery committed in certain specific modes), they could not apply it because the information failed to allege the specific modes required by Article 508.
The Court affirmed the penalty of nine years of presidio mayor, with accessory penalties, restitution, and costs, but modified the crime from robo en cuadrilla* to simple robbery under Article 503, paragraph 5, with aggravating circumstances.