GR 1646; (April, 1904) (Digest)
G.R. No. 1646 : April 16, 1904
THE UNITED STATES, complainant-appellee, vs. VENTURA MARIANO, defendant-appellant.
FACTS:
The defendant, Ventura Mariano, was charged with the crime of bandolerismo. Evidence presented during the trial established that Mariano had been a member of the municipal police of Pasig, Rizal, from September 1, 1902, until he deserted on November 3 or 4, 1902. At the time of his appointment, he took an oath of allegiance to the United States Government. Upon deserting, he took with him several firearms, including revolvers and shotguns, from the police barracks. He subsequently joined an armed band led by General San Miguel, which operated in the province. Witnesses testified that Mariano became a captain in this band, which consisted of hundreds of armed men. The band, including Mariano, participated in an attack on the pueblo of Pasig on the night of December 24, 1902. During this attack, the band, armed with deadly weapons, engaged the Constabulary, committed robberies, and sequestered and ill-treated civilians. Mariano’s voluntary confession, taken on March 21, 1903, corroborated these facts, detailing his desertion, delivery of arms to the band, appointment as a captain, and participation in the band’s criminal activities.
ISSUE:
Whether the evidence adduced is sufficient to convict Ventura Mariano of the crime of bandolerismo under Act No. 518 of the Philippine Commission.
RULING:
Yes. The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the Court of First Instance of Rizal, sentencing Ventura Mariano to life imprisonment. The Court found the evidence conclusive and sufficient to establish all elements of bandolerismo. The facts demonstrated that Mariano was a member of an armed band organized for the purpose of robbery and pillage, which went out upon the highways and roamed over the country armed with deadly weapons. His actionsincluding desertion from the police with stolen firearms, joining the band, and participating in the armed attack on Pasigfell squarely within the definition of the crime under Section 1 of Act No. 518. The Court adopted the trial court’s findings and upheld the conviction.