GR 1625; (April, 1904) (Digest)
G.R. No. 1625 : April 7, 1904
THE UNITED STATES, complainant-appellee, vs. EULALIO BUNDOC, ET AL., defendants-appellants.
FACTS:
The appellants were convicted of the crime of brigandage under Act No. 518 . The evidence was deemed sufficient for conviction. However, the appellants challenged the legal sufficiency of the complaint filed against them. The complaint alleged that during 1903, in the mountains, forests, and towns of the province, the appellants, together with others led by “General Tomas de Guzman,” formed an armed band that engaged in robbery and pillage, causing alarm and terror among the inhabitants.
ISSUE:
Whether or not the complaint sufficiently alleges all the essential elements of the crime of brigandage as defined by Act No. 518 .
RULING:
The complaint is SUFFICIENT. The judgment of conviction is AFFIRMED.
The Court, through the majority opinion, held that the complaint, when fairly construed, alleges all the elements of brigandage. It states that: (1) a band of more than three persons was formed; (2) they were armed with deadly weapons; and (3) they devoted themselves to robbery in the mountains, forests, and populated parts of the province. The Court reasoned that it cannot be assumed the band did not use the highways or roam the fields while moving between these locations to commit robberies. The allegation that the band “devoted itself to robbery” necessarily implies the purpose required by law, making a separate allegation of conspiracy for that purpose unnecessary.
DISSENTING OPINION:
Justice Cooper dissented, arguing the complaint was fatally defective. He emphasized that under Act No. 518 , brigandage requires not just the formation of an armed band, but specifically that the band “go out upon the highway or roam over the country armed with deadly weapons” for the purpose of robbery. The complaint failed to allege this specific element. Merely stating the band was in mountains and populated areas and devoted itself to pillage does not equate to alleging they went out upon highways or roamed the country for that purpose. The dissent stressed that the prosecution must clearly allege and prove every statutory element of the offense.