Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1906 > March 1906 Decisions > G.R. No. 1928 March 9, 1906 - UNITED STATES v. NICOMEDES DINGLASAN, ET AL.

005 Phil 695:




PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

EN BANC

[G.R. No. 1928. March 9, 1906. ]

THE UNITED STATES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. NICOMEDES DINGLASAN, ET AL., Defendants-Appellants.

H.D. Green, for Appellants.

Solicitor-General Araneta, for Appellee.

SYLLABUS


1. BRIGANDAGE; INFORMATION; PLEADING AND PRACTICE. — An information charging the accused with the crime of brigandage and specifically charging the robbery of certain property "in an armed band" is sufficient to sustain a conviction of the crime of "robbery in an armed band." (U.S. v. Domingo Macasadia Et. Al., February 10, 1906.)

2. OBJECTION; NEW TRIAL. — An objection to the granting of a new trial will not be considered when it is made for the first time in the brief of counsel on appeal.


D E C I S I O N


CARSON, J. :


Nicomedes Dinglasan having died pending his appeal, the cause, in so far as it relates to him, should be, and is hereby, dismissed, with his proportionate share of the costs in both instances de oficio.

Engracio de Mesa and Simeon Carandag were charged with the crime of brigandage, the information alleging that they had conspired together and formed a band of brigands composed of some twelve armed members, and specifically charging them with the robbery of certain property in the municipality of San Juan de Bocboc on the 29th of June, 1903.

We do not think the evidence of record is sufficient to sustain the charge of brigandage, but we are of opinion that appellants were proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt of the crime of robbery in an armed band as alleged in the complaint, marked with the aggravating circumstance that advantage was taken of the darkness of the night in the commission of the crime. Therefore, in accordance with the doctrine laid down in United States v. Ortega Et. Al. 1 (3 Off Gaz., 366) and United States v. Domingo Macasadia Et. Al. 2 (February 10, 1906, 4 Off. Gaz., 235), it is the duty of this court to reverse the judgment and sentence of the trial court, and to impose the appropriate sentence for the crime of robbery, of which the appellants were proven guilty.

It appears from the record that during the trial of this case the hearing was suspended upon joint motion of the prosecution and the defendants, and that the judge who sat in the case up to that time having left the Islands, the judge who presided at the next term of court granted a new trial, and after hearing several witnesses who had not been called on the previous trial, pronounced judgment and imposed the sentence which is before us on appeal.

It does not affirmatively appear from the record whether this new trial was or was not granted on motion of the defendants, but no objection was made at the time, and, without going into the question as to whether, in view of the existing circumstances, such new trial could have been granted over the objections of the defendants, their objections of the defendants, their objection made for the first time in the brief of counsel on appeal avails them nothing.

It is not necessary to determine whether the evidence taken at the first trial should or should not have been taken into consideration upon the second trial, because the evidence adduced at the second trial fully sustains the foregoing finding of the guilt of the accused of the robbery with which they are charged.

We therefore reverse the judgment and sentence of the trial court, and instead thereof we sentence the said appellants Engracio de Mesa and Simeon Carandag and each of them to ten years’ imprisonment (presidio mayor) and the accessory penalties prescribed by law, to the restitution of the stolen property, or the indemnification of their value to the owners thereof, and to the payment of their respective share of the costs in both instances. No provision is made for subsidiary punishment in this case, the principal penalty being higher in degree than that of presidio correccional. (Art. 51, Penal Code.) So ordered.

Arellano, C.J., Torres, Mapa, Johnson and Willard, JJ., concur.

Endnotes:



1. 4 Phil. Rep., 814.

2. Page 602, supra.




Back to Home | Back to Main




















chanrobles.com





ChanRobles On-Line Bar Review

ChanRobles Internet Bar Review : www.chanroblesbar.com

ChanRobles MCLE On-line

ChanRobles Lawnet Inc. - ChanRobles MCLE On-line : www.chanroblesmcleonline.com






March-1906 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. 1904 March 3, 1906 - FRANCISCO GONZALEZ QUIROS v. CARLOS PALANCA TAN-GUINLAY

    005 Phil 675

  • G.R. No. 2763 March 3, 1906 - W.L. WRIGHT v. ALFRED F. SMITH, ET AL.

    005 Phil 681

  • G.R. No. 1451 March 6, 1906 - UNITED STATES v. AURELIO TOLENTINO

    005 Phil 682

  • G.R. No. 2500 March 8, 1906 - MARIA DE LA CONCEPCION MARTINEZ CAÑAS v. MARIANO TUASON, ET AL.

    005 Phil 688

  • G.R. No. 2645 March 8, 1906 - FRANCISCA CABREROS v. VICTORINO PROSPERO

    005 Phil 693

  • G.R. No. 1928 March 9, 1906 - UNITED STATES v. NICOMEDES DINGLASAN, ET AL.

    005 Phil 695

  • G.R. No. 2430 March 9, 1906 - UNITED STATES v. JUAN LEANDRO VILLARINO, ET AL.

    005 Phil 697

  • G.R. No. 2434 March 9, 1906 - UNITED STATES v. BERNARDO BOAC

    005 Phil 699

  • G.R. No. 1974 March 15, 1906 - CATHOLIC CHURCH v. A. W. HASTINGS, ET AL.

    005 Phil 701

  • G.R. No. 2020 March 15, 1906 - GERMANN & CO. v. LUIS R. YANGCO, ET AL.

    005 Phil 717

  • G.R. No. 2452 March 15, 1906 - MATILDE BALLESTER v. GONZALO LEGASPI

    005 Phil 722

  • G.R. No. 2600 March 15, 1906 - UNITED STATES v. FRANK DE L. CARRINGTON

    005 Phil 725

  • G.R. No. 3139 March 15, 1906 - ALEJANDRO SANTOS v. CELESTINO VILLAFUERTE

    005 Phil 739

  • G.R. No. 2116 March 16, 1906 - BERNARDINO CACNIO v. LAZARO BAENS

    005 Phil 742

  • G.R. No. 2327 March 17, 1906 - LUIS PEREZ SAMANILLO v. W.A. WHALEY, ET AL.

    005 Phil 747

  • G.R. No. 2457 March 17, 1906 - UNITED STATES v. ANICETO DADACAY

    006 Phil 1

  • G.R. No. 2575 March 17, 1906 - MARIA DE LA CONCEPCION MARTINEZ CAÑAS v. MUNICIPALITY OF SAN MATEO

    006 Phil 3

  • G.R. No. 2570 March 21, 1906 - UNITED STATES v. ANASTASIO ASUNCION

    006 Phil 9

  • G.R. No. 2292 March 22, 1906 - UNITED STATES v. FRANCISCO CASTRO

    006 Phil 10

  • G.R. No. 2721 March 22, 1906 - RAFAEL MOLINA v. ANTONIO DE LA RIVA

    006 Phil 12

  • G.R. No. 2603 March 26, 1906 - UNITED STATES v. FRANK DE L. CARRINGTON

    006 Phil 20

  • G.R. No. 2695 March 26, 1906 - UNITED STATES v. DOMINGO YSIP

    006 Phil 26

  • G.R. No. 2733 March 27, 1906 - UNITED STATES v. NICOLAS ARCEO

    006 Phil 29

  • G.R. No. 1458 March 29, 1906 - MAX L. FORNOW v. J. C. HOFFMEISTER

    006 Phil 33

  • G.R. No. 2735 March 29, 1906 - UNITED STATES v. FRANCISCO REYES

    006 Phil 38

  • G.R. No. 2969 March 29, 1906 - UNITED STATES v. FRANCISCO J. REYES

    006 Phil 40

  • G.R. No. 1009 March 31, 1906 - UNITED STATES v. IGNACIO SANTA MARIA

    006 Phil 44

  • G.R. No. 1202 March 31, 1906 - FRANCISCO SAEZ CO-TIONGCO v. CO-QUING-CO

    006 Phil 46

  • G.R. No. 1922 March 31, 1906 - CITY OF MANILA v. FRANCISCO GAMBE

    006 Phil 49

  • G.R. No. 2336 March 31, 1906 - JOAQUIN PELLICENA CAMACHO v. LEONCIO GONZALEZ LIQUETE

    006 Phil 50

  • G.R. No. 2676 March 31, 1906 - UNITED STATES v. EUSTAQUIO HORCA

    006 Phil 52