Sunday, March 29, 2026

GR 1727; (April, 1905)

🔎 Search our Comprehensive Legal Repository...

G.R. No. 1727

G.R. No. 1727 : April 18, 1905

THE UNITED STATES, complainant-appellee,

vs.
JULIO DE LA CRUZ, ET AL., defendants-appellants.

W. L. Wright for appellants.
Office of the Solicitor-General Araneta for appellee.

MAPA, J.:

Between 10 and 12 o’clock on the evening of March 16, 1903, the houses of Luciano Rivera and Saturnino Gonzalez, situated in the barrio of Rio Chico, town of Peñaranda, Province of Nueva Ecija, were raided by seven individuals armed with bolos and carrying three guns, the robbers taking clothing belonging to Rivera of the value of 2.50 pesos, two carabaos belonging to Gonzalez of the value of 200 pesos, and a pair of earrings of the value of 2 pesos belonging to the wife of said Gonzalez, all having been secured by means of violence exercised against the persons of the occupants of the houses. This fact was clearly proven at the trial, and we also consider as proven that the four defendants took part in the commission of the robbery and that they are, therefore, liable as principals in accordance with the law.

The facts established constitute the crime of robbery en cuadrilla, provided for and punished under article 504 of the Penal Code, and not that of bandolerismo, as charged in the complaint, since there is no proof that the defendants formed or were a part of a band of brigands such as is defined by Act No. 518 and Act No. 1121 amendatory thereof. The crime of robbery en cuadrilla being necessarily included in that of bandolerismo, the defendants can be convicted of the former notwithstanding having been charged with the latter, in accordance with the doctrine established in several decisions of this court.

We affirm the judgment appealed from, it being understood that the crime committed is robbery en cuadrilla and not bandolerismo, with the costs in this instance to appellants. So ordered.

Arellano, C.J, Torres and Johnson, JJ., concur.
Carson, J., reserves his opinion.

Batas Pinas

spot_img

Hot this week

GR 3257; (March, 1907)

PETRONA CAPISTRANO, ET AL. vs. ESTATE OF JOSEFA GABINO

GR 223572; (November, 2020)

JENNIFER M. ENANO-BOTE, VIRGILIO A. BOTE, JAIME M. MATIBAG, WILFREDO L. PIMENTEL, TERESITA M. ENANO, PETITIONERS, VS. JOSE CH. ALVAREZ, CENTENNIAL AIR, INC. AND SUBIC BAY METROPOLITAN AUTHORITY, RESPONDENTS

The Lien and the Legacy: Fidelity to the Word in GR L 2024

The Lien and the Legacy: Fidelity to the...

The Prophetic Mandate and the Weight of Judgment in G.R. No. 272006

The Prophetic Mandate and the Weight of Judgment in...

The Rule on Collision (The Three Zones)

SUBJECT: The Rule on Collision (The Three Zones) I. INTRODUCTION...
⚖️ Case Intelligence
📌 Core Doctrine

"A defendant charged with a greater offense can be convicted of a necessarily included lesser offense if the evidence supports it, even if not explicitly charged."

💡 Plain English

The court ruled that the robbers could be found guilty of a lesser crime (robbery by a group) instead of the more serious one (banditry) they were accused of, because the evidence only proved the lesser crime. This means you can be convicted for what you actually did, even if the charge was for something worse, as long as it's a part of that worse crime.

📜 Legal Maxim

Inclusio unius est exclusio alterius | Nemo tenetur ad impossibile

Verified AI Snapshot

Popular Categories

spot_imgspot_img