G.R. No. 555 : January 22, 1904
THE UNITED STATES, complainant-appellee, vs. PANTALEON GIMENO, defendant-appellant.

FACTS:
The defendant-appellant, Pantaleon Gimeno, was convicted for a crime involving robbery. The evidence clearly established his guilt. The information alleged that the defendant, armed with a gun, entered the house of the complaining witness at midnight, beat him with the gun’s butt, and took money and property from his family before departing. At trial, no objections were raised regarding the sufficiency of the complaint. However, on appeal, the defendant argued that the complaint was deficient for not specifically stating that the acts were done “feloniously” and for not detailing which specific family member owned each article of stolen property. An additional claim was made that the defendant’s lawyer was absent during the pronouncement of the sentence.

ISSUE:
Whether the complaint or information filed against the defendant was insufficient for failing to: (1) allege that the acts were done “feloniously,” and (2) specify which particular family member owned each item of stolen property.

RULING:
The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction. The complaint was legally sufficient. An allegation that the defendant, armed with a gun, entered a house at midnight, assaulted the occupant, and took property from the family inherently describes a felonious act; an explicit use of the word “feloniously” is not necessary. Furthermore, the failure to specify which family member owned each particular article did not prejudice any substantial right of the defendant on the merits of the case. Even assuming any defect, a reversal was not warranted under General Orders No. 58, Section 10, which prohibited reversal for defects that did not affect substantial rights. The Court applied the same reasoning to dismiss the claim regarding the alleged absence of counsel during sentencing. The judgment of the lower court was affirmed.