G.R. No. 1231 : August 29, 1903
THE UNITED STATES, complainant-appellee, vs. ISIDORO PASCUAL, ET AL., defendants-appellants.

FACTS:
The defendants were convicted of the crime of brigandage. The conviction was based, in significant part, upon certain confessions they made to officers and soldiers of the Constabulary. During the trial in the court below, no evidence was presented to establish whether these confessions were given freely and voluntarily. The statutory requirement under Act No. 619, Section 4, mandates that before a confession can be admitted as evidence, the prosecution must first demonstrate to the court’s satisfaction that it was not obtained through violence, intimidation, threat, menace, or promises of reward or leniency.

ISSUE:
Whether the trial court erred in admitting and considering the confessions of the defendants as evidence without a prior showing, as required by law, that they were voluntarily made.

RULING:
Yes. The Supreme Court set aside the judgment and remanded the case for a new trial. The Court held that the positive provisions of Act No. 619, Section 4, are mandatory. The trial judge should not have considered the confessions because the prosecution failed to make the required preliminary showing that they were freely and voluntarily given. The Court rejected the suggestion that the defendants’ failure to object to the admission of the confessions constituted a tacit waiver of this statutory safeguard, given the law’s strong and explicit language. The prosecution must be given an opportunity to comply with the law in a new trial.

The Court further clarified that mere proof of belonging to an armed band is insufficient to convict for brigandage; the prosecution must also prove the criminal purposes to which the band was devoted. The Court also noted the Solicitor-General’s suggestion to prosecute for rebellion instead, leaving it to the prosecuting officer, with the court’s consent, to pursue that course upon remand.