Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1908 > September 1908 Decisions > G.R. No. 4500 September 8, 1908 - UNITED STATES v. MARCELO AQUINO, ET AL.

011 Phil 244:




PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

EN BANC

[G.R. No. 4500. September 8, 1908. ]

THE UNITED STATES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. MARCELO AQUINO, ET AL., Defendants-Appellants.

W. H. Lawrence for Appellants.

Attorney-General Araneta for Appellee.

SYLLABUS


1. PRELIMINARY EXAMINATION; WAIVER. — A preliminary trial before a justice of the peace may be waived by the accused; and where the accused. fails to object at the trial upon the ground that he has had no preliminary investigation, he must be taken to have waived his right thereto, and can not maintain an objection upon this ground for the first time upon appeal.

2. ROBBERY; SUFFICIENCY OF INFORMATION. — An allegation in an information charging the crime of robbery en cuadrilla, that the accused (three in number in company with others unknown) entered with arms into a certain house and committed the crime of robbery, is sufficient compliance with the provisions of the statute to sustain a conviction.

3. ID.; ID.; ROBBERY "EN CUADRILLA." — Upon such an information, however, proof that a robbery was committed by more than three persons, of whom but three were armed, is not sufficient to sustain a conviction of robo en cuadrilla, since under the statute it must appear that more than three of the party bore arms.


D E C I S I O N


CARSON, J. :


The appellants were charged with the crime of robbery in an armed band (robo en cuadrilla) upon the following information filed by the provincial fiscal on the 28th of June, 1907:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"The undersigned charges Marcelo Aquino, Toribio Limos, and Ignacio Varela with the crime of robbery in a gang, committed as follows:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"That at about 2 o’clock in the morning of the 10th of April, 1907, in the barrio of Rimos, pueblo of Luna, Province of La Union, the above-named accused, in company with other unknown individuals willfully, illegally, feloniously, and with arms, entered the dwelling of one Bonifacia Raso, and, with intent of profiting thereby and by means of violence and intimidation, took possession of personal property of Doroteo Barroso and of the said Bonifacia Raso, of the total value of 2,338 pesetas; Doroteo Barroso was bound and thrown down with his face to the floor; this deed, which constitutes the offense punished in No. 5 of article 503 of the Penal Code, was executed within the jurisdiction of this Court of First Instance and against the statute."cralaw virtua1aw library

Both of the appellants were convicted of the crime with which they were charged, and both and each of them were sentenced to nine years of presidio mayor, with the accessory penalties prescribed in article 57 of the Penal Code, to the restitution to the owners of the stolen goods or the payment of their value, and to the payment of a proportionate share of the costs of the trial.

Counsel for the appellants contends that the judgment of conviction and sentence should be reversed because, as he alleges, first, the accused were brought to trial without a preliminary investigation of the facts alleged in the information; second, it does not appear that they were arraigned or given an opportunity to enter their formal plea; third, the information is defective in that it fails to charge specifically the crime of robbery in all arme band (robo en cuadrilla) of which the accuser convicted; fourth, the evidence adduced at the trial fails to establish the identity of the appellants with the unknown persons who committed the crime charged in the information

It appears from the record that two preliminary trials (one upon a complaint filed by Doroteo Barroso, and the other upon an information filed by the provincial fiscal) were had in the court of the justice of the peace of the municipality of Luna, and that the charges were dismissed in both cases, the court being of opinion that the evidence did not sustain a finding that there was probable cause to believe that the accused were guilty of the offense charged; that a third complaint was submitted by an official of the Constabulary to the justice of the peace of the provincial capital and that no action was taken upon that complaint; that finally the fiscal of the province filed the above set out information in the Court of First Instance, and that under his directions this information was forwarded to the justice of the peace of San Fernando, the capital of the province, who held a preliminary investigation thereon, found that there was probable cause to believe that the accused were guilty as charged, and remanded them for trial to the Court of First Instance; that later upon this information the accused were tried and convicted, and that thereafter the trial judge set aside his judgment of conviction ex propio motu, and granted the accused a new trial; that upon this new trial the accused were again convicted and sentenced; and that it is from this final judgment and sentence that the appeal in this case was entered.

It thus appears that the accused were in fact given a preliminary investigation upon the information upon which they were tried in the court of the justice of the peace of the provincial capital The counsel contends that this preliminary proceeding was invalid because it does not appear that the judge of the trial court expressly ordered reference of the information to the justice of the peace of San Fernando, in accordance with the provisions of Act No 1627. No objection appears to have been made to this proceeding either in the court of the justice of the peace or in the trial court, nor did the accused raise any objection at the trial upon the ground now raised for the first time upon appeal, that they were not given a preliminary trial Under these circumstances, we are of opinion that they must be taken to have waived any other preliminary investigation than that which was accorded them in the court of the justice of the peace of San Fernando, and to have waived those defects in the preliminary proceedings which are now indicated by the counsel upon appeal It has been uniformly held, not only by this court but by the various courts of the United States, that when provision is made for the preliminary trial of accused persons by a justice of the peace, this right is one which may be waived by the accused (People v. Tarbox, 115 Cal, 57; 47 Pac. Rep. — Idaho — 915; 46 Nebr., 631; 83 Wis, 486; People v. Harris, 103 which, 473; 25 Fla, 675; 45 Hun, 34; U S v. Cockrill, 8 Phil Rep, 742; U. S. vs Asebuque, 9 Phil Rep, 241); and this court has frequently held that where the accused fails to object to proceedings upon the ground that he has had no preliminary investigation, he must be taken to have waived his right thereto, and can not raise an objection upon this ground for the first time upon appeal (U. S. vs Asebuque, 9 Phil Rep, 211; 54 Kan., 206; 44 Neb, 417.)

The second assignment of error would appear to be based upon an oversight of counsel for the appellants. Upon page 62 of the record of the second trial, it is expressly set out that "the accused upon arraignment pleaded not guilty" This trial was had, as counsel himself admits, upon the above set out information, dated the 28th of June, 1907, and the fact alleged by counsel that it does not affirmatively appear that the accused were affirmatively arraigned upon the complaints filed in the court of the justice of the peace, which were dismissed, is of course of no importance.

The third assignment of error wherein it is alleged that the information is defective in that it fails to charge specifically the crime of robbery in an armed band, is sufficiently answered by a reading of the above set out information. The argument of counsel appears to be directed to the defects in the complaint originally filed in the court of the justice of the peace which appears on page 24 of the record, but as he himself admits, on page 5 of his brief, the trial in the Court of First Instance was had upon the above set out information, dated June 28, 1907, which appears on page 34 of the record This information expressly charges "that the accused (three in number) in company with others unknown, entered with arms the house of Bonifacia Raso," where the crime was committed, and this would seem to be sufficient compliance with the provisions of the statute.

The contention of counsel for the appellants as to the failure of proof of identification of the accused with the persons who committed the robbery set out in the information is based upon the fact that the proof of identity rests substantially upon the testimony of the witness Paula Costes, who, counsel alleges, must have been so frightened at the time that the offense was committed that her capacity to recognize and identify the persons who committed the crime should not be accepted without some doubt We think, however, upon a careful examination of her testimony, that it is conclusive and satisfactory, and taken together with the other evidence of record, leaves no room for doubt as to the guilt of the accused The witnesses, however, saw only three members of the gang who committed the robbery, the others remaining outside the house, and the evidence therefore fails to establish the allegations of the complaint that the gang was composed of more than three armed persons

The judgment of the trial court that the accused were guilty of the crime of robbery in an armed band (robo en cuadrilla) must therefore be reversed, and this court should and does hereby find both the appellants guilty of the crime of simple robbery as defined in paragraph 5 of article 503, committed at night and in the house of the offended party These facts should be taken into consideration as aggravating circumstances in accordance with the doctrine laid down in the case of the United States vs Leyba (8 Phil Rep, 671), and the sentencia of the supreme court of Spain of December 24, 1896 There being no extenuating circumstances, the penalty prescribed should be imposed in its maximum degree, and the penalty imposed by the trial court being within the limits of the maximum degree of the penalty prescribed by the Penal Code for the crime of which we have convicted the accused, we impose upon these appellants the same penalty with the costs against the appellants.

It should, perhaps, be observed that the penalty prescribed in article 508 for the robbery of an amount greater than 1,250 pesetas, committed with arms in all inhabited house, in one of the modes set out in that article, is higher in degree than that which is herein imposed upon the appellants who were charged with and convicted of the crime of robbery with violence and intimidation to the person, as defined and penalized in paragraph 5 of article 503 of the Penal Code; and although the evidence adduced at the trial would seem to sustain a finding that the crime actually committed would fall under the definition of the crime of robbery penalized in article 508, nevertheless we have not considered in this case whether upon the facts proven, the penalty prescribed in article 508 could be imposed had the facts been sufficiently alleged in the information, because the information in this case fails to allege that the robbery was committed is one of the modes which are indicated in that article as a requisite to the commission of the crime therein penalized. So ordered

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

Willard and Tracey, JJ., concur in the result.




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






September-1908 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. 4379 September 1, 1908 - VICENTE GUASH v. JUANA ESPIRITU

    011 Phil 184

  • G.R. No. 4672 September 1, 1908 - UNITED STATES v. PEDRO MANANGAN, ET AL.

    011 Phil 186

  • G.R. No. 4094 September 3, 1908 - UNITED STATES v. MORO MATANUG

    011 Phil 188

  • G.R. No. 4367 September 3, 1908 - UNITED STATES v. SALVADOR VALLEJO, ET AL.

    011 Phil 193

  • G.R. No. 4444 September 3, 1908 - SALIH ADAD v. JAMES CRAIG TOW, ET AL.

    011 Phil 199

  • G.R. No. 4528 September 4, 1908 - GOV’T. OF THE PHIL. ISLANDS v. AMERICAN SURETY CO. OF NEW YORK, ET AL.

    011 Phil 203

  • G.R. No. 3869 September 7, 1908 - ALEJANDRO AGONOY, ET AL. v. ESTANISLAO RUIZ, ET AL.

    011 Phil 204

  • G.R. No. 3945 September 7, 1908 - JOSE Y. LOPEZ v. IGNACIO MENDEZONA, ET AL.

    011 Phil 209

  • G.R. No. 4134 September 7, 1908 - UNITED STATES v. LUCAS CANLEON

    011 Phil 215

  • G.R. No. 4414 September 7, 1908 - CHUA CHIENCO v. ANGEL VARGAS

    011 Phil 219

  • G.R. No. 4486 September 7, 1908 - UNITED STATES v. ALFREDO REYES, ET AL.

    011 Phil 225

  • G.R. No. 4487 September 7, 1908 - UNITED STATES v. ALFONSO MELEGRITO, ET AL.

    011 Phil 229

  • G.R. No. 4558 September 7, 1908 - UNITED STATES v. MARCELO LORIA

    011 Phil 232

  • G.R. No. 4580 September 7, 1908 - UNITED STATES v. SANTIAGO FONTANILLA

    011 Phil 233

  • G.R. No. 4638 September 7, 1908 - UNITED STATES v. MARCELINO AQUINO, ET AL.

    011 Phil 236

  • G.R. No. 4683 September 7, 1908 - UNITED STATES v. JOSE KERR

    011 Phil 238

  • G.R. No. 4919 September 7, 1908 - IN RE: JOSEPH J. CAPURRO

    011 Phil 241

  • G.R. No. 4500 September 8, 1908 - UNITED STATES v. MARCELO AQUINO, ET AL.

    011 Phil 244

  • G.R. No. 4585 September 8, 1908 - LEOCADIO JOAQUIN v. LAMBERTO AVELLANA

    011 Phil 249

  • G.R. No. 4395 September 9, 1908 - BEHN, MEYER & CO. v. EL BANCO ESPAÑOL-FILIPINO

    011 Phil 253

  • G.R. No. 4465 September 10, 1908 - MARCELA ALVARAN v. BERNARDO MARQUEZ

    011 Phil 263

  • G.R. No. 4613 September 10, 1908 - UNITED STATES v. INOCENCIO LAT

    011 Phil 269

  • G.R. No. 4073 September 12, 1908 - TAN CONG v. M. L. STEWART

    011 Phil 271

  • G.R. No. 4536 September 17, 1908 - BEHN, MEYER & CO. v. J. MC MICKING, ET AL.

    011 Phil 276

  • G.R. No. 4588 September 17, 1908 - EASTERN EXTENSION AUSTRALASIA, ET AL v. JOHN S. HORD

    011 Phil 280

  • G.R. No. 4640 September 17, 1908 - CLARA MARCELO v. EL CHINO VELASCO

    011 Phil 287

  • G.R. No. 4685 September 17, 1908 - UNITED STATES v. ENG-JUA, ET AL.

    011 Phil 293

  • G.R. No. 3763 September 18, 1908 - RAMON N. OROZCO v. JUAN XAVIER

    011 Phil 295

  • G.R. No. 3868 September 18, 1908 - FRANCISCO MARTINEZ v. PEDRO MARTINEZ

    011 Phil 298

  • G.R. No. 4021 September 18, 1908 - FRANCISCO ROSCO, ET AL. v. MARIANO REBUENO

    011 Phil 300

  • G.R. No. 4764 September 18, 1908 - UNITED STATES v. TOMAS MOLINA, ET AL.

    011 Phil 305

  • G.R. No. 4031 September 22, 1908 - ARCADIO REMIGIO v. FAUSTO RIGATA

    011 Phil 307

  • G.R. No. 4701 September 22, 1908 - ROMAN CATHOLIC APOSTOLIC CHURCH, ET AL. v. ISABEL FAMILIAR, ET AL.

    011 Phil 310

  • G.R. No. 4741 September 22, 1908 - UNITED STATES v. ISIDORO MATA

    011 Phil 313

  • G.R. No. 3490 September 23, 1908 - ROMAN CATHOLIC APOSTOLIC CHURCH v. MUN. OF PLACER

    011 Phil 315

  • G.R. No. 4323 September 23, 1908 - UNITED STATES v. DOROTEO PARCON

    011 Phil 323

  • G.R. No. 4349 September 24, 1908 - UNITED STATES v. ANICETO BARRIAS

    011 Phil 327

  • G.R. No. 4359 September 24, 1908 - EMILIO B. ESCUIN v. FRANCISCO ESCUIN, ET AL.

    011 Phil 332

  • G.R. No. 1435 September 28, 1908 - G. S. WEIGALL v. W. MORGAN SHUSTER

    011 Phil 340

  • G.R. No. 4003 September 29, 1908 - FELICIANO RUPEREZ v. BUENAVENTURA DIMAGUILA, ET AL.

    011 Phil 358

  • G.R. No. 4401 September 29, 1908 - UNITED STATES v. FELISA BRONDIAL, ET AL.

    011 Phil 363

  • G.R. No. 4417 September 29, 1908 - UNITED STATES v. ALEJANDRO QUIJANO, ET AL.

    011 Phil 368

  • G.R. No. 4542 September 29, 1908 - UNITED STATES v. ISMAEL TABOTABO

    011 Phil 372