GR 1237; (September, 1903) (Digest)
G.R. No. L-1237, September 30, 1903
THE UNITED STATES, complainant-appellee, vs. LEONARDO GUINACARAN, ET AL., defendants-appellants.
FACTS:
On the night of December 27, 1902, a large armed band entered the house of Pantaleon Losing in Calutan, Unisan, Tayabas. They stole personal property valued at 180 Mexican pesos, kidnapped Losing and his wife Cirila Ubal, and took them to an encampment at Puting Lupa or Mabugabuga. There, the victims were tied up, beaten, and subjected to a “council of war” by the band’s leaders, who sentenced them to death for allegedly informing the Constabulary about the whereabouts of their chief, Felipe Verastegui. The execution was set for January 6, 1903, but on that day the encampment was attacked by Constabulary forces, leading to the victims’ rescue. The band, which operated under the name “The Liberating Army of the Philippines,” was composed of the defendants holding various fictitious military ranks. They were charged with brigandage under Act No. 518 . The prosecution presented multiple witnesses, including the victims, who identified the defendants as members of the band that committed the robbery and kidnapping.
ISSUE:
Whether the defendants are guilty of the crime of brigandage as defined and penalized under Act No. 518 .
RULING:
Yes, the defendants are guilty of brigandage. The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the Court of First Instance. The evidence established that the defendants were part of an armed band organized for the purpose of committing robbery through force and violence. The band operated in the countryside, preying on inhabitants, as demonstrated by the specific robbery and kidnapping of Pantaleon Losing and his wife after the enactment of Act No. 518 . Under Section 2 of the said Act, proof that a defendant was a member of such an armed band is sufficient for conviction, without the necessity of proving that the defendant personally committed a specific act of robbery. The court found no mitigating circumstances and noted the high degree of criminality involved. The judgment was affirmed with respect to the eighteen appellants. The case against the deceased defendant, Dionisio Andalis, was dismissed.