GR 1493; (February, 1904) (Digest)
G.R. No. 1493 : February 25, 1904
THE UNITED STATES, complainant-appellee, vs. BERNARDO USIS, ET AL., defendants-appellants.
FACTS:
The defendants, Bernardo Usis, Marcelino Mangubat, Aquilino Cantada, Luis Taganas, and Mateo Ronquillo, were convicted by the Court of First Instance of Cavite for the crime of bandolerismo under Act No. 518 . They were sentenced to twenty years imprisonment. The prosecution’s evidence showed that in May 1903, in Silang, Cavite, the defendants were arrested by Insular police while in the company of one Aguedo. Upon encountering Constabulary troops, Aguedo fired at them and escaped, while the defendants were captured. Four defendants were armed with bolos and one with a Mauser bayonet. The defendants claimed they were assembled to search for a lost carabao belonging to one of them. The trial court found their testimonies contradictory regarding their residences, arms, and the manner of their assembly, leading to their conviction.
ISSUE:
Whether the evidence presented is sufficient to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the defendants formed an armed band for the purpose of robbery or theft, as defined and required under Act No. 518 (the Brigandage Act).
RULING:
No. The Supreme Court reversed the judgment of conviction and acquitted the defendants.
To sustain a conviction for bandolerismo under Act No. 518 , it must be proven that the accused formed a band of robbers for the purpose of stealing property by means of force and violence and that they went upon the highway or roamed the country armed with deadly weapons for that purpose. While direct proof of a robbery is not necessary, the purpose of the band must be inferable from the circumstances beyond reasonable doubt.
In this case, there was no proof, direct or circumstantial, from which it could be properly inferred that the band was organized for the purpose of robbery or theft. The mere fact that the defendants were found together and armed, without more, was insufficient to establish the criminal purpose required by the law. The contradictions in their testimonies pertained to collateral details and did not substantiate the essential element of criminal intent for brigandage. Consequently, the evidence was insufficient to support a conviction.