Case Digest (G.R. No. 1351)
Facts:
- Defendants Francisco Decusin, Vicente Decusin, and three others were accused of assaulting the house of Anacleto Salvatera and robbing him of 800 pesos and jewelry through force and violence.
- The defendants were armed with bolos and a club during the robbery.
- The lower court sentenced Francisco Decusin and Vicente Decusin to twenty-two years imprisonment, while the other three defendants were sentenced to twenty years each.
Issue:
- (Unlock)
Ruling:
- The conviction for brigandage was overturned due to lack of evidence proving the defendants' membership in an organized band of highway robbers.
- The defendants can still be ...(Unlock)
Ratio:
- In order to convict someone of brigandage, the prosecution must prove the existence of an organized band and the purpose of the band to commit robbery by force and violence.
- Every material ingredient of the offense must be proved by competent evidence.
- The evidence presented in this case only showed that a robbery was committed by three or more men acting together, but it did not prove the existence of an organized band or the specific purpose of the band.
- Therefore, the conviction for brigandage could not be sustained.
- However, the evidence was sufficient to prove that the defendants committed the robbery and used force an...continue reading
Case Digest (G.R. No. 1351)
Facts:
The case of U.S. v. Decusin involves the defendants Francisco Decusin, Vicente Decusin, and three others who were accused of assaulting and robbing the house of Anacleto Salvatera in San Fernando de la Union on January 3, 1903. The defendants were charged with the crime of brigandage under Act No. 518 of the Philippine Commission. The defendants were armed with bolos and a club during the robbery. At the trial, the defendants attempted to prove an alibi, but the court found sufficient evidence to establish their identity and their involvement in the robbery. The Court of First Instance sentenced Francisco Decusin and Vicente Decusin to twenty-two years of imprisonment, while the other three defendants were sentenced to twenty years each.
Issue:
The main issue in this case is whether the defendants can be convicted of the crime of brigandage. The defendants argued that there was a lack of evidence to prove that they were members of an armed band formed for the purpose of stealing personal property by force and that they went upon the highway or roamed over the country for that purpose. They contended that the evidence only showed that they committed a robbery as a group, but it did not establish that they belonged to a band of brigands.
Ruling:
The court ruled that in order to sustain a conviction for the crime of brigandage, the evidence must show that the defendants were members of an armed band formed for the purpose of stealing personal property by force and that they went upon the ...