Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1905 > January 1905 Decisions > G.R. No. 1669 January 4, 1905 - UNITED STATES v. EVANGELISTA

004 Phil 106:




PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

FIRST DIVISION

[G.R. No. 1669. January 4, 1905. ]

THE UNITED STATES, Complainant-Appellee, v. ESTEBAN EVANGELISTA, Defendant-Appellant.

Santiago D. Reyes for Appellant.

Solicitor-General Araneta for Appellee.

SYLLABUS


1. CRIMINAL LAW; INSURRECTION; COMPLAINT. — A complaint is not sufficient to charge the defendant with the crime of insurrection for aiding and feeding a band of ladrones under the command of the so-called president and secretary of war of the Philippine republic when it does not state that the said band to which the defendant gave aid and food was a band devoted to abetting, promoting, or aiding any rebellion or insurrection against the authority of the United States or the Government of the Philippine Islands, or the laws thereof, or that the said band was engaged in any rebellion or insurrection, which is a requisite according to section 3 of Act No. 292.

2. ID.; ID.; ID. — The statement contained in the complaint that the leaders of a band are the president and secretary of the so-called Philippine republic does not involve the affirmation that the band was a band of insurgents.

3. CRIMINAL PROCEDURE; EVIDENCE. — When the evidence does not show the fact that the person or persons to whom the defendant gave aid and food were insurgents, the defendant can not be convicted of the crime of insurrection.


D E C I S I O N


MAPA, J. :


The appellant, together with Mariano Bulos and Isaac Rance, was charge with the crime of insurrection. These three individuals having each sentenced by the Court of First Instance to the penalty of two years’ imprisonment and two hundred dollars fine, Evangelista was the only one who appealed, and for this reason the judgment of the Court of First Instance became final for the other two defendants.

The appellant is charged with having assisted and given food, in the barrio of Motiquio of the municipality of Paquil, to a band of ladrones under the command of Macario Sakay, so-called president of the Philippine republic, and Fidel Noble, secretary of war of the same, and to one Mateo Angeles and Aniceto Maristela, without reporting the fact afterwards to the proper authorities.

These facts, although they may be true, would not be sufficient top convict the defendant of the crime of insurrection, since it is not stated in the complaint that the band to which the said defendant gave aid and food was a band devoted to abetting, promoting, or aiding any rebellion or insurrection against the authority of the United States or the Government of the Philippine Islands, or the laws thereof, or that the said was engaged in any rebellion or insurrection, which is a requisite according to section 3 of Act No. 292. The statement contained in the complaint that Macario Sakay and Fidel Noble, in command of said band, are the president and secretary of war, respectively, of the so-called Philippine republic, is not in itself sufficient to cure that omission. As the prosecution says in its written argument, this does not involve the affirmation that they are insurgents. So true is this that the complaint itself does not call them insurgents, but ladrones.

The complaint, therefore, is insufficient to hold the appellant for the crime for which he has been sentenced by the Court of First Instance, and for this reason it can not be sustained.

Besides, it is not proved in any way that the appellant committed the crime with which he is charged in the complaint. No one testifies that he either gave food or assistance of any kind to the band of Sakay or Noble. The only fact which has been proved is that the defendant, who was a municipal councilor representing the barrio of Matiquio, saw Mateo Angeles there. But it is likewise proven that the defendant immediately reported that fact to the municipal president of the said town. Furthermore, it is not established that Mateo Angeles is known as an insurgent in the said barrio, where he appeared, according to the defendant, as a member of the Constabulary and with the uniform of such organization.

And if it is further taken into account that Aniceto Maristela, "one of those to whom the defendant gave aid," as the complaint says, explicitly denies this fact, adding that he does not know the defendant, and that he had never been in the barrio of Matiquio, we must necessarily arrive at the conclusion that there is no proof as to the certainty of the facts alleged by the prosecution.

In view of the foregoing statement, we reverse the judgment appealed from and entirely acquit the defendant, with the costs in both instances de oficio. So ordered.

Arellano, C.J., Torres, Johnson and Carson, JJ., concur.




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






January-1905 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. 1289 January 3, 1905 - UNITED STATES v. ANASTASIO BOSITO ET AL.

    004 Phil 100

  • G.R. No. 1523 January 4, 1906

    UNITED STATES v. JACINTO SOSA

    004 Phil 104

  • G.R. No. 1669 January 4, 1905 - UNITED STATES v. EVANGELISTA

    004 Phil 106

  • G.R. No. 1945 January 4, 1905 - UNITED STATES v. MANUEL NAVARRETE ET AL.

    004 Phil 108

  • G.R. No. 1287 January 5, 1905 - UNITED STATES v. PEDRO BAGUIAO

    004 Phil 110

  • G.R. No. 1290 January 5, 1905 - UNITED STATES v. REGINO AYAO, ET AL.

    004 Phil 114

  • G.R. No. 2094 January 11, 1905 - UNITED STATES v. MANUEL TOMINES

    004 Phil 120

  • G.R. No. 1314 January 12, 1905 - UNITED STATES v. JOSE SAMSON

    004 Phil 123

  • G.R. No. 1340 January 12, 1905 - UNITED STATES v. CLARO MENDOZA

    004 Phil 124

  • G.R. No. 1643 January 12, 1905 - UNITED STATES v. SATURNINO DE LA CRUZ ET AL.

    004 Phil 126

  • G.R. No. 2246 January 12, 1905 - UNITED STATES v. PEDRO BAILON

    004 Phil 128

  • G.R. No. 1536 January 14, 1905 - UNITED STATES v. ROMULO AGAS

    004 Phil 129

  • G.R. No. 1565 January 14, 1905 - UNITED STATES v. JOSE NER

    004 Phil 131

  • G.R. No. 2362 January 14, 1905 - FRANK DE L. CARRINGTON v. J. J. PETERSON

    004 Phil 134

  • G.R. No. 1615 January 16, 1905 - UNITED STATES v. ANDRES ASCUE

    004 Phil 138

  • G.R. No. 1692 January 18, 1905 - UNITED STATES v. ADRIANO PERDON

    004 Phil 141

  • G.R. No. 1874 January 18, 1905 - UNITED STATES v. ANGEL ONGTENGCO

    004 Phil 144

  • G.R. No. 1222 January 21, 1906

    UNITED STATES v. MATEO LAPUS, ET AL.

    004 Phil 147

  • G.R. No. 1767 January 21, 1905 - UNITED STATES v. GAVINO GARCIA

    004 Phil 151

  • G.R. No. 1851 January 23, 1905 - UNITED STATES v. SATURNINO TRINIDAD

    004 Phil 152

  • G.R. No. 1855 January 23, 1905 - UNITED STATES v. CATALINO COFRADA

    004 Phil 154

  • G.R. No. 1989 January 23, 1905 - UNITED STATES v. CELEDONIO NERY

    004 Phil 158

  • G.R. No. 1737 January 25, 1905 - UNITED STATES v. PETRONILO PATIÑO ET AL.

    004 Phil 160

  • G.R. No. 1757 January 25, 1905 - UNITED STATES v. DOMINGO LASCANO

    004 Phil 164

  • G.R. No. 1826 January 25, 1905 - UNITED STATES v. PABLO GABRIEL

    004 Phil 165

  • G.R. No. 1827 January 25, 1905 - UNITED STATES v. LEONARDO SANTIAGO

    004 Phil 168

  • G.R. No. 1541 January 27, 1905 - UNITED STATES v. VICENTE SANTILLAN

    004 Phil 170

  • G.R. No. 1828 January 27, 1905 - UNITED STATES v. FERMIN MANGADO

    004 Phil 171

  • G.R. No. 1832 January 28, 1905 - UNITED STATES v. MARTIN SOSA ET AL.

    004 Phil 172

  • G.R. No. 1957 January 30, 1905 - UNITED STATES v. SATURNINO ASILO

    004 Phil 175

  • G.R. No. 1958 January 30, 1905 - UNITED STATES v. ESTEBAN CABINGAN

    004 Phil 177

  • G.R. No. 1687 January 31, 1905 - UNITED STATES v. MARIA SOLIS ET AL.

    004 Phil 178