Case Digest (G.R. No. L-3441)
Facts:
The United States v. Eulogio de Mesa (alias Alejandro Timbang), G.R. No. 3441, March 09, 1907, the Supreme Court En Banc, Torres, J., writing for the Court. The United States was the plaintiff-appellee and Eulogio de Mesa (alias Alejandro Timbang) was the defendant-appellant.On February 13, 1906 a written complaint was filed in the Court of First Instance of Manila by the prosecuting attorney charging the accused with robbery. The complaint alleged that on or about February 7, 1906 the accused, by means of intimidation, forcibly took 35 pesos in money (the property of Florentino Elicano and then in the custody of Timoteo Gaton). After trial, the presiding judge rendered decision on May 3, 1906 finding the accused guilty and sentencing him to four years' imprisonment (presidio correccional). The accused appealed the judgment.
The evidence showed that on the afternoon or night of February 7, 1906 Timoteo Gaton (who was carrying money) and Vicente Eculango were making purchases in Calle Rosario when an unknown man approached, insisted on taking the money, and, after declaring himself an officer and showing a revolver, snatched the money and ran away. Gaton reported the incident to the secret service; upon being shown photographs he identified the picture of the accused, who was later arrested and again identified by Gaton. The occurrence took place amid a spate of robberies in Manila during which the accused’s picture had repeatedly been designated by victims.
The trial court convicted and imposed presidio correccional (...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Was the evidence sufficient to convict the accused of robbery with intimidation?
- Did the facts establish aggravating circumstances (specifically craft, fraud, and simulation as an officer) under paragraph 8 of Article 10 of the Penal Code to warrant an increased penalty?
- Could the Court consider the accused’s alleged prior convictions as an aggravating circumstance under paragraph 17 of Article 10 without certified copies of those judgments in the record?
- Were any extenuating circumstances under Article 11...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)