GR 1620; (April, 1904) (Digest)
G.R. No. 1620 : April 12, 1904
THE UNITED STATES, complainant-appellee, vs. FAUSTINO GUILLERMO, ET AL., defendants-appellants.
FACTS:
The defendants were charged with the crime of bandolerismo. After a trial in the Court of First Instance of Rizal on October 24, 1903, Faustino Guillermo was sentenced to death, while his co-accused received sentences ranging from life imprisonment to twenty-five years. Only the death sentence of Faustino Guillermo was elevated to the Supreme Court for automatic review under Act No. 194 . The prosecution presented multiple witnesses and the detailed confession of Faustino Guillermo himself. In his confession, Guillermo admitted to being a colonel appointed by General San Miguel, recruiting men, gathering arms, and leading a band in numerous armed engagements against the Constabulary and Scouts in the provinces of Rizal and Bulacan. He detailed specific battles where his band captured firearms, ammunition, supplies, and prisoners. Witness testimony corroborated that Guillermo commanded an armed band that engaged in robberies, took property by force from towns and individuals (including carabaos, money, and jewelry), and committed acts of violence such as assault and mutilation.
ISSUE:
Whether the evidence is sufficient to convict Faustino Guillermo of the crime of bandolerismo.
RULING:
Yes. The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the lower court, finding Faustino Guillermo guilty of bandolerismo. The Court held that the evidence, particularly Guillermo’s own comprehensive confession which was admitted without objection, justified the following conclusions: (1) Faustino Guillermo was a member of an armed band of more than three persons; (2) the band was armed with deadly weapons and roamed the highways and countryside for the purpose of stealing carabaos and other personal property; (3) the band entered several towns in Rizal and Bulacan in early 1903 and robbed people by force and violence; and (4) Guillermo organized the band for such purposes and was one of its chiefs. The penalty of death was affirmed. One Justice dissented, opining that life imprisonment would suffice.