Case Digest (G.R. No. 1139)
Facts:
- Defendants Leandro Diaz, Pioson, and Leongsong were charged with being brigands.
- The provincial fiscal filed a complaint against them, alleging that Diaz accepted the office of vice-president, Pioson accepted the office of captain, and Leongsong accepted the office of lieutenant in a revolutionary organization.
- The appointments were made by the brigands, and the defendants were accused of assisting them without the knowledge of the authorities and against the provisions of Act No. 518.
Issue:
- (Unlock)
Ruling:
- The court ruled in favor of the defendants and acquitted them of the charges.
- The court held that Act No. 518 is not retroactive, and therefore, one who accepts an office in a revolutionary organization prior to its passage does not become guilty of brigandage under the said act.
- The court found that there was no evidence to show that the defen...(Unlock)
Ratio:
- The court based its decision on the fact that Act No. 518 was not retroactive.
- Since the defendants accepted their offices in the revolutionary organization prior to the passage of the act, they could not be found guilty of brigandage under its provisions.
- The court also noted that there was no evidence to prove that the defendants were engaged in acts prohibited and punished by Act ...continue reading
Case Digest (G.R. No. 1139)
Facts:
The case of U.S. v. Diaz involves the defendants Leandro Diaz, Pioson, and Leongsong who were charged with being brigands under Act No. 518 of the Philippine Commission. The provincial fiscal alleged that Diaz accepted the office of vice-president, Pioson the office of captain, and Leongsong the office of lieutenant in a revolutionary organization without the knowledge of the authorities and against the provisions of the said act. The defendants pleaded not guilty.
Issue:
The main issue raised in the case is whether or not the defendants can be found guilty of the crime of brigandage under Act No. 518.
Ruling:
The court ruled that the defendants cannot be found guilty of the crime of brigandage under Act No. 518.
Ratio:
The court based its decision on several grounds. Firstly, the statements made by Diaz did not indicate that he was a member of any band of brigands or the ...