G.R. No. L‑2786
November 21, 1907

FACTS
Victoriano Asebique was convicted by the Court of First Instance (Iloilo) for aiding and abetting a band of brigands under Sec. 4 of Act No. 518, as amended by Act No. 1121. The record showed that in May 1904 he sold about fifty rifle cartridges (₱0.50 each) to four menTaleon, Ader, Blas, and Agapitoidentified as members and sub‑officers of “Toribio’s band,” a notorious brigand group. The prosecution proved that Asebique knew the purchasers were brigands and that the sale was unlawful. He was sentenced to fifteen years’ imprisonment with hard labor, accessory penalties, and costs.

On appeal, Asebique raised six assignments of error, chiefly contending:
1. No preliminary investigation was held.
2. He was tried without being arraigned or pleading.
3. The evidence did not establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
4. The trial court erred in denying a continuance to secure witnesses.
5. The sentence (hard labor, accessory penalties) was improper.
6. The conviction should be set aside.

ISSUE
Whether the conviction and sentence of Victoriano Asebique for aiding and abetting a band of brigands were legally valid despite the procedural and evidentiary objections raised.

RULING
1. Preliminary Investigation The absence of a formal record of a preliminary investigation is immaterial; such records need not be part of the appellate record. Even assuming none was held, the accused waived the right by not objecting at trial.

2. Arraignment and Plea The alleged defect was cured by the Attorney‑General’s submission of a certified copy of the trial minutes showing Asebique was duly arraigned and entered a plea of not guilty.

3. Sufficiency of Evidence Testimony established that (a) Taleon and his companions were members of Toribio’s band; (b) the band was a band of brigands engaged in robberies; and (c) Asebique sold ammunition to them knowing their identity and the illegality of the act. The prosecution’s witnesses testified from personal knowledge; cross‑examination was permitted. No reasonable doubt existed as to the elements of the offense.

4. Continuance Motion The prosecution had expressly admitted the facts the defense sought to prove through the absent witnesses; thus, denial of the continuance did not prejudice the accused.

5. Sentence The hard‑labor provision and accessory penalties were not authorized by the penal provision under which Asebique was convicted. Consequently, those portions of the sentence were excised.

6. Overall Decision The conviction stands; the sentence is affirmed minus the improperly imposed accessory penalties and hard labor.

Disposition: The appellate court affirmed the conviction and the modified sentence (15 years’ imprisonment with labor as provided by law, without accessory penalties).

Concurrence: Chief Justice Arellano and Justices Torres, Mapa, Johnson, Willard, and Tracey joined in the opinion.