Case Digest (G.R. No. 2203)
Facts:
- The case involves The United States vs. Domingo Salcedo, where Salcedo was charged with bandolerismo.
- The trial took place in the Court of First Instance of Ambos Camarines, resulting in a twenty-year prison sentence and costs.
- The charge stemmed from events after November 12, 1902, where Salcedo allegedly conspired with others to form a band of robbers in Buhi, Ambos Camarines.
- The group was accused of intending to steal carabaos and other property using force and violence while armed.
- Salcedo appealed, arguing that the complaint did not meet the clarity requirements of General Orders, No. 58, and that the evidence was insufficient for conviction.
Issue:
- (Unlock)
Ruling:
- The court determined that the complaint was sufficient, adequately describing the crime of bandolerismo as per statutory requirements.
- However, the evidence was found insufficient to support the conviction, resulting i...(Unlock)
Ratio:
- The court emphasized that a complaint must clearly outline all essential elements of the crime as defined by law.
- The complaint against Salcedo was deemed sufficient as it included necessary components such as conspiracy, intent to steal, and armed presence on highways.
- Despite the adequacy of the complaint, the evid...continue reading
Case Digest (G.R. No. 2203)
Facts:
In the case of The United States vs. Domingo Salcedo, the defendant, Domingo Salcedo, was charged with the crime of bandolerismo. The case originated in the Court of First Instance of the Province of Ambos Camarines, where Salcedo was sentenced to twenty years of imprisonment and ordered to pay costs. The events leading to the charge occurred after November 12, 1902, when Salcedo allegedly conspired with more than three individuals to form a band of robbers in the mountains of Buhi, Ambos Camarines. The complaint asserted that this group aimed to steal carabaos and other personal property through the use of force and violence, and that they roamed the highways armed with deadly weapons. Salcedo appealed the decision, contesting the sufficiency of the complaint and the evidence presented against him. His attorney argued that the complaint did not meet the requirements set forth in paragraph 3 of section 6 of General Orders, No. 58, which mandates that a complaint must clearly articulate the acts constituting the crime in a manner understandable to a person of common understanding. The attorney also contended that the evidence was insufficient to support the conviction...