Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1905 > March 1905 Decisions > G.R. No. 1193 March 4, 1905 - UNITED STATES v. JOSEPH HOWARD

004 Phil 238:




PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

EN BANC

[G.R. No. 1193. March 4, 1905. ]

THE UNITED STATES, Complainant-Appellee, v. JOSEPH HOWARD, Defendant-Appellant.

H. D. Terrell, for Appellant.

Solicitor-General Araneta, for Appellee.

SYLLABUS


1. CRIMINAL LAW; ROBBERY; QUALIFYING CIRCUMSTANCES; INTIMIDATION. — The fact that two of the defendants covered the clerk and the servant of a railway company with a revolver, intimidating them in this manner, while a third defendant took and carried away the safe with the money therein contained, against the will of the owner of the money, constitutes the crime of robbery provided for and punished by article 502 and paragraph 5 of article 503 of the Penal Code.

2. ID.; ID.; AGGRAVATING CIRCUMSTANCES; NOCTURNITY. — The circumstance that the defendants took advantage of the nighttime to commit the crime of robbery should be taken into consideration as an aggravation of the penalty thereof.

3. CRIMINAL PROCEDURE; COMPLAIN; RIGHTS OF THE ACCUSED. — Failure to specify in the complaint the participation which each one of the defendants had in the commission of the crime does not prejudice the rights of the accused when at the trial of the case that participation is shown and the defendants plead and testify in their own behalf without objecting to the validity of the complaint.

4. ID.; ID.; APPEAL. — The Supreme Court can not consider the exception to a complaint on the ground that it does not specify the participation which the defendants took in the commission of the crime, when it appears that the defendants did not object to or question the validity of such complaint in the court below, and that their participation was determined at the trial of the case, when it furthermore appears that the defendants pleaded and testified in their own behalf.


D E C I S I O N


TORRES, J. :


In a complaint dated November 10, 1902, Joseph Howard, Joe Williams, John Mack, and Charles Nailor were charged by the provincial fiscal of Pampanga with the crime of robbery. The complaint stated that while Bernardino de Jesus, an employee of the railway, and his servant, Segundo Meneses, were in the station of said railway at Angeles, at about 7 o’clock in the evening of the 2d of November, three Americans entered the same; that they were armed with revolvers; that the two of the defendants aimed their revolvers at said employee and his servant while the other went to the place where the safe was located and took the same, with the money contained therein, amounting to 165.47 4/8 pesos, Mexican; that they then left immediately, carrying said sum away, and in order to facilitate their exit they broke the door which opens upon the platform facing the town of Mabalacat; all contrary to law. The case having come on to tried, one of the defendants, John Mack, having escaped (folio 15), the court, at the request of the defense, ordered the case to proceed as to the other three defendants present, separating the trial as to the absent defendant. As a result of the trial, judgment was rendered on the 2d day of December, 1902, in which Joseph Howard and Joe Williams were sentenced as principals in the crime of robbery to eight years and eleven months of presidio mayor, with the accessories provided for in article 57, to return, jointly and severally, the amount taken, to wit, 143.52 pesos, Mexican, without subsidiary imprisonment in case of their failure to pay said sum, on account of the nature of the principal penalty imposed, and to each pay one-third of the costs. Charles Nailor was acquitted, with the remaining costs de oficio. The judgment also provided that the sum of 21.91 pesos deposited with the clerk should be returned to the employee of the railway station at Angeles. This judgment became final as regards William and Nailor, and was appealed from by Howard. This court, by resolution taken July 13, 1903 (folio 32), suspended the sentence and returned the case to the court below for a new trial.

From the evidence adduced in the trial it appears that on the evening of the 2d of November of said year three Americans came to the said station; that these Americans were Joseph Howard, Joe Williams, and John Mack; that they came there under the pretext of changing some bank notes which they did not show; that immediately one of them threatened said Bernardino de Jesus, pointing his revolver at him, and another of them did likewise toward Segundo Meneses, while the third went immediately to where the safe was located and took it, with all the money contained therein, amounting to 165.47 4/8 pesos, Mexican, and then immediately left in the direction of the town of Mabalacat. These acts characterize the crime as that of robbery with intimidation of person as provided for and punished in article 502 and paragraph 5 of article 503 of the Penal Code. The three defendants, with the intention of profiting thereby, took possession of the money belonging to another by means of intimidation and contrary to the will of the employee of said station in charge of the collection of money, whom they threatened with their revolvers. These facts constitute the crime of robbery punished by paragraph 5 of article 503 of the Penal Code with presidio correccional to presidio mayor in its medium degree. Having come up here on the appeal of the defendant Howard only, this court can not take into consideration in rendering its decision anything regarding Williams and Charles Nailor, of whom the former has been sentenced and the latter acquitted by final judgment. The court will not take into consideration anything regarding John Mack, against whom there is a separate case.

The liability of Joseph Howard is fully proven. The two eyewitness of the crime of robbery, Bernardino de Jesus and Segundo Meneses, in their testimony corroborate each other, that Howard was the third party who took the safe containing the money while the other two were aiming their arms at said two witnesses; they pointed at him several times during the trial and gave many details as to how they identified him, in spite of the surprise and fright they had at the time the robbery took place, and notwithstanding also the fact that the defendant had grown a beard. They identified him because the defendant, together with his codefendants, used to come to the station and sit on some pieces of lumber in the rear of same. It is true that the persons who came in answer to the cries for help of the two injured parties did not find the robbers, but they saw them running at a great distance; they did not try to follow, because they knew the robbers were armed, but three or four days afterwards the latter were captured, together with Nailor, near the San Fernando station, and the sum of 21.91 pesos, Mexican, was found in their possession and also two revolvers. There is, therefore, sufficient evidence in the case to justify the penalty imposed upon the defendants. In the commission of the crime we must consider the existence of the aggravating circumstance of nocturnity, without any extenuating circumstance present to offset the effects of the former, and therefore the penalty which the defendant has incurred should be imposed in its maximum degree.

As for the rest, the complaint is valid and there is no defect tending to prejudice the rights of the defendant. Section 5 of General Orders, No. 58, does not require the complaint to be sworn to by the prosecuting attorney. In that complaint Joseph Howard and others were charged with the crime for which he is now prosecuted, and if the trial developed the respective participation which each of the defendants took in the robbery, failure to express these details in the complaint does not prejudice the rights of this defendant, who, being one of the accused persons in said robbery, came in and presented his defense and declared in his own behalf without having taken exception to said complaint. Therefore, in this court he can not raise any question whatever as to the validity of the complaint.

Therefore, by virtue of the reasons above stated, and also those stated by the court below in its judgment of October 5, 1903, we are of the opinion that the judgment below should be affirmed and the defendant, Joseph Howard, sentenced to eight years and eleven months of presidio mayor, with the accessories provided in article 57 of the Penal Code, to return, jointly and severally with his codefendants, Joe Williams and John Mack, to the employee of the station of Angeles the amount of 143.52 pesos, Mexican, unrecovered, without having to suffer subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency on account of the nature of the principal penalty, and to pay one-third of the costs; and that delivery be made to the employee of the railway of the sum of 21.91 pesos, Mexican, deposited with the clerk. This case to be remanded to the court below with a certified copy of this decision and of the judgment which shall be rendered in accordance herewith. So ordered.

Arellano, C.J., Mapa, 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






March-1905 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. 1193 March 4, 1905 - UNITED STATES v. JOSEPH HOWARD

    004 Phil 238

  • G.R. No. 1996 March 6, 1905 - UNITED STATES v. ESPIRIDION ROQUE ET AL.

    004 Phil 242

  • G.R. No. 1420 March 10, 1905 - UNITED STATES v. BENITO CASTROVERDE

    004 Phil 246

  • G.R. No. 1937 March 10, 1905 - UNITED STATES v. TOMAS DOON

    004 Phil 249

  • G.R. No. 1611 March 13, 1905 - UNITED STATES v. MODESTO CABAYA, ET AL.

    004 Phil 252

  • G.R. No. 1677 March 13, 1905 - UNITED STATES v. ALEJO CARANTO, ET AL.

    004 Phil 256

  • G.R. No. 1685 March 13, 1905 - UNITED STATES v. PABLO CORPUS

    004 Phil 258

  • G.R. No. 1758 March 13, 1905 - UNITED STATES v. MACARIO CATIGBAC

    004 Phil 259

  • G.R. No. 1931 March 13, 1905 - UNITED STATES v. JOSE CARIASO, ET AL.

    004 Phil 261

  • G.R. No. 1944 March 13, 1905 - UNITED STATES v. JOSE BUCOY, ET AL.

    004 Phil 263

  • G.R. No. 1986 March 13, 1905 - UNITED STATES v. JUAN GATMAITAN

    004 Phil 265

  • G.R. No. 2413 March 13, 1905 - EUSTAQUIA SALCEDO, ET AL. v. AMANDA DE MARCAIDA DE FARIAS

    004 Phil 267

  • G.R. No. 892 March 14, 1905 - UNITED STATES v. JUAN LUNA

    004 Phil 269

  • G.R. No. 1503 March 14, 1905 - UNITED STATES v. ALEJO RAVIDAD, ET AL.

    004 Phil 271

  • G.R. No. 1716 March 14, 1905 - UNITED STATES v. ISAIAS AGUASA ET AL.

    004 Phil 274

  • G.R. No. 1902 March 14, 1905 - UNITED STATES v. LUDOVICO ISAIS, ET AL.

    004 Phil 276

  • G.R. No. 1502 March 16, 1905 - UNITED STATES v. BENJAMIN M. GOODWIN, ET AL.

    004 Phil 282

  • G.R. No. 1770 March 16, 1905 - TOMASA FIDELINO v. BENITO LEGARDA

    004 Phil 285

  • G.R. No. 1941 March 16, 1905 - UNITED STATES v. TIBURCIO LAZARO

    004 Phil 288

  • G.R. No. 1459 March 17, 1905 - UNITED STATES v. JOHN MACK

    004 Phil 291

  • G.R. No. 1605 March 17, 1905 - UNITED STATES v. SIMEON MANAYAO, ET AL.

    004 Phil 293

  • G.R. No. 2012 March 17, 1905 - UNITED STATES v. ENGRACIO ANGEL

    004 Phil 295

  • G.R. No. 452 March 18, 1905 - IN RE: JOSE ROBLES LAHESA

    004 Phil 298

  • G.R. No. 1901 March 18, 1905 - UNITED STATES v. JOHN M. FLEMISTER

    004 Phil 300

  • G.R. No. 1593 March 20, 1905 - UNITED STATES v. BENITO MERCADO

    004 Phil 304

  • G.R. No. 1803 March 20, 1905 - UNITED STATES v. HERRMAN

    004 Phil 306

  • G.R. No. 1804 March 20, 1905 - UNITED STATES v. GEORGE HERRMAN

    004 Phil 307

  • G.R. No. 1654 March 21, 1905 - UNITED STATES v. FELIX MABIRAL, ET AL.

    004 Phil 308

  • G.R. No. 1749 March 21, 1905 - UNITED STATES v. FORTUNATO ODICTA

    004 Phil 309

  • G.R. No. 1821 March 21, 1905 - UNITED STATES v. PEDRO ORTEGA

    004 Phil 314

  • G.R. No. 2104 March 23, 1905 - EDWARD B. MERCHANT v. SIMPLICIO DEL ROSARIO

    004 Phil 316

  • G.R. No. 1461 March 24, 1905 - UNITED STATES v. WILLIAM A. WILSON

    004 Phil 317

  • G.R. No. 2270 March 24, 1905 - UNITED STATES v. JOSE T. DIAZ

    004 Phil 325

  • G.R. No. 1741 March 25, 1905 - UNITED STATES v. CEFERINO IBRADO, ET AL.

    004 Phil 330

  • G.R. No. 1214 March 27, 1905 - UNITED STATES v. RAMON MELENCIO

    004 Phil 331

  • G.R. No. 1580 March 27, 1905 - UNITED STATES v. PAULINO VALLADOS

    004 Phil 339

  • G.R. No. 1740 March 27, 1905 - UNITED STATES v. JULIO GLORIA

    004 Phil 341

  • G.R. No. 1987 March 27, 1905 - UNITED STATES v. APOLONIO MANAUL

    004 Phil 342

  • G.R. No. 1332 March 29, 1905 - UNITED STATES v. GERONIMO LUZON

    004 Phil 343

  • G.R. No. 1352 March 29, 1905 - UNITED STATES v. APOLONIO CABALLEROS

    004 Phil 350

  • G.R. No. 1721 March 29, 1905 - UNITED STATES v. CHARLES H. OSBORN

    004 Phil 352

  • G.R. No. 1726 March 29, 1905 - UNITED STATES v. PRUDENCIO SORNITO

    004 Phil 357

  • G.R. No. 1959 March 29, 1905 - UNITED STATES v. FELIX AGUILAR

    004 Phil 361

  • G.R. No. 1967 March 29, 1905 - UNITED STATES v. FRANCISCO ALBAN

    004 Phil 363