Digest: G.R. No. 2772
THE UNITED STATES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. LOUIS A. UNSELT, defendant-appellant.
Decided: September 21, 1906

FACTS:
1. The defendant, Louis A. Unselt, was accused of violating Act No. 518 (Brigandage Law) prior to his first arrest on February 5, 1903.
2. After his arrest, Unselt entered the service of the Philippine Constabulary as a detective. He was later discharged and rearrested in July 1903.
3. The prosecution presented evidence that Unselt committed acts of brigandage before his initial arrest.
4. Unselt claimed that upon joining the Constabulary, he was promised immunity from prosecution for prior offenses, but the court did not consider this claim relevant to the case.

ISSUE:
Whether the evidence sufficiently proved that Unselt violated the Brigandage Law before his first arrest in February 1903.

RULING:
YES. The Supreme Court held that:
1. The evidence against Unselt for acts committed before his first arrest was sufficient to sustain his conviction under Act No. 518.
2. The alleged promise of immunity (if any) by the Constabulary did not constitute a valid defense.
3. The judgment of the lower court was affirmed, with costs against Unselt.

The Court did not examine whether Unselt committed additional violations after his arrest or during his service as a detective, as the prior evidence was already conclusive.

Vote: Affirmed. Arellano, C.J., Torres, Mapa, Carson, and Tracey, JJ., concur.