G.R. No. L-1351: September 25, 1903
THE UNITED STATES, complainant-appellee, vs. FRANCISCO DECUSIN, ET AL., defendants-appellants.

FACTS:
The defendants were convicted by the Court of First Instance of the crime of robbery committed as a band of highwaymen or brigands under Act No. 518 of the Philippine Commission. The information alleged that on January 3, 1903, the defendants, armed with bolos and a club, assaulted the house of Anacleto Salvatera in San Fernando, La Union, and by means of force and violence robbed him of 800 pesos and jewelry. The defendants raised the defense of alibi, claiming they were attending a wedding celebration at the time. The trial court found the evidence of their identity as the perpetrators sufficient and sentenced Francisco Decusin and Vicente Decusin to twenty-two years imprisonment, and the other three defendants to twenty years each.

ISSUE:
Whether the prosecution proved beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendants were guilty of the crime of brigandage under Act No. 518 , which requires proof that three or more persons conspired to form a band for the purpose of stealing property by force and violence and went upon the highway or roamed over the country armed with deadly weapons for that purpose.

RULING:
No. The Supreme Court reversed the judgment of conviction for brigandage.
The Court held that while the evidence sufficiently established that the defendants conspired and committed the specific robbery of Salvatera’s house, it failed to prove the essential elements of the crime defined in Act No. 518 . To convict under this law, the prosecution must prove: (1) a conspiracy to form a band of robbers; (2) for the purpose of stealing property by force and violence; and (3) that the band went out upon the highway or roamed over the country armed with deadly weapons for that purpose.
The mere commission of a robbery by several persons acting together does not, by itself, justify the inference that they constituted the “band of highway robbers or brigands” contemplated by the statute. The record contained no proofdirect or circumstantialthat the defendants formed a conspiracy with the ongoing purpose of roaming the country to commit robberies. The evidence was consistent with the hypothesis that they conspired only for the single, particular robbery in question. The defendants were therefore improperly convicted under Act No. 518 . The case was remanded to the court below with instructions to enter a judgment convicting the defendants of the crime of robbery under Article 502 of the Penal Code and to impose the corresponding penalty.