GR 1487; (April, 1905) (Digest)
G.R. No. 1487 : April 6, 1905
PARTIES:
Plaintiff-Appellee: The United States
Defendants-Appellants: Ismael Tan-Seco, et al.
FACTS:
The defendants were charged with the crime of brigandage under Act No. 518 of the Philippine Commission. The evidence established that they had formed a band in the City of Manila. This band approached a certain Vaughn on four or five occasions to recruit him. On the night of their arrest, they had concrete plans to rob two houses and had agreed to kill anyone who resisted them. The defendants were armed, with at least one member carrying a small knife (cortaplumas).
ISSUE:
Whether the crime of brigandage, as defined under Act No. 518, can be committed within the limits of a city.
RULING:
Yes, the crime of brigandage can be committed within a city.
The Supreme Court rejected the defendants’ contention that the law was intended only for rural areas. The primary legislative intent of Act No. 518 was to suppress the formation of armed bands organized for robbery, thereby protecting life and property. This protection extends equally to urban and rural areas. The law’s use of the words “highway” and “country” does not exclude its application to cities. “Highway” includes city streets, and “country” is used in a geographical sense (i.e., the country of the Philippines), not to denote rural areas exclusively. Excluding Manila would create an arbitrary distinction and frustrate the law’s purpose, as evidenced by the defendants’ armed band operating within the city.
Regarding the penalty, the Court modified the trial court’s judgment. While it agreed the defendants were guilty, it held that the sentence of life imprisonment was excessive. The sentence was reduced to imprisonment for twenty (20) years for each defendant.
DISPOSITIVE PORTION:
The judgment of the court below was AFFIRMED with the MODIFICATION that the sentence is reduced to twenty (20) years of imprisonment for each defendant. Costs were taxed against the appellants.
NOTE:
Chief Justice Arellano dissented, expressing the opinion that the facts of the case did not constitute the crime of brigandage. Justices Mapa and Carson concurred only in the result.