G.R. No. 1596 : April 22, 1904
THE UNITED STATES, complainant-appellee, vs. HILARIO ZAFRA, ET AL., defendants-appellants.

FACTS:
On October 6, 1903, the provincial fiscal of Rizal filed an information in the Court of First Instance accusing Hilario Zafra, Basilio Capistrano, and Carlos San Diego of insurrection. This was amended on October 23, 1903, charging them instead with the crime of brigandage. The amended information alleged that on or after November 12, 1902, until their capture in May or June 1903, the accused were willful members of an armed band of thieves under the command of the so-called General San Miguel and his subordinates, engaged in robbery by force and violence while wandering armed through the Provinces of Bulacan and Rizal. The accused pleaded not guilty. After trial, the court convicted them and sentenced each to twenty-four years’ imprisonment and payment of costs, prompting their appeal.

At trial, witnesses testified that the accused were members of armed bands led by Faustino Guillermo, Ciriaco Contreras, and Julian Santos, which operated in combination and recognized Luciano San Miguel as their principal leader. The evidence established that these bands, composed of about one hundred armed men, committed various criminal acts, including robbing Chinese stores in Meycauayan, assaulting and robbing the office of the president of Navotas, attacking Constabulary soldiers in Santa Maria and Pasig (killing two), stealing carabaos, and offering armed resistance to authorities.

ISSUE:
Whether the accused are guilty of the crime of brigandage as defined and punished under Section 1 of Act No. 518, enacted November 12, 1902.

RULING:
Yes. The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the trial court. The evidence sufficiently established the existence of the crime of brigandage. The accused were proven to be members of bands composed of more than three armed men that wandered through Bulacan and Rizal, engaged in robbery and other crimes against persons and property, and resisted authorities. The Court held that even if the bands were initially organized with a political character or purpose, the accused’s participation in the documented acts of vandalism, robbery, and armed attacks constituted brigandage under the statute. The defense that some accused were captured by the bands was not proven. Therefore, the conviction under Act No. 518 was proper. The sentence of twenty-four years’ imprisonment for each defendant was affirmed, with one-third of the costs in both instances imposed upon them.