Title
People vs. Laporbeda
Case
G.R. No. L-287
Decision Date
Feb 27, 1947
During Japanese occupation, accused looted, burned a hut, kidnapped victims, and claimed coercion; court found them guilty of banditry, rejecting coercion defense, and imposed joint liability.

Case Summary (G.R. No. L-287)

Case Background and Initial Proceedings

The defendants appealed a decision made by the Court of First Instance of Samar. They were convicted of banditry and sentenced to an indeterminate prison term ranging from one year, eight months, and twenty-one days to seven years, four months, and one day. Additionally, Laporbeda and Lasaga were ordered to indemnify Niedo in the amounts of P10 and P50, respectively.

Facts of the Case

The events transpired in the barangay of Sta. Cruz, Tarangnan, Samar, where Norberto Niedo and his family sought refuge from invading Japanese forces. On June 21, 1942, the accused, alongside eleven others, approached Niedo's makeshift shelter causing alarm. Niedo recognized Laporbeda’s voice and attempted to escape with his children while the accused engaged in looting. The family suffered further trauma as Niedo's wife and child were kidnapped, with their property valued at P125 stolen. There were acts of violence where firearms were discharged by the accused to deter the victims from escaping, and Laporbeda also set fire to the shelter before leaving.

Defense Arguments

The defendants claimed they were merely fleeing from wrongful contributions demanded by Niedo for guerrilla support, ultimately captured by a group they described as the "pulahanes." They contended that any illicit acts they were involved in should not be attributed to them as they were coerced participants rather than willing accomplices. They referenced prior cases that supported their argument, suggesting innocence due to lack of involvement in criminal acts.

Prosecution's Evidence

Contrary to the defendants' claims, substantial evidence indicated their active participation in the crimes committed. Eyewitness testimonies revealed that the accused were not merely captives; Laporbeda was identified as invoking Niedo to come down from the shelter, while other accused participated in the theft and violence. The organization and execution of the act were inconsistent with claims of them being hostages.

Legal Findings

The defense suggesting bias against Niedo due to personal animosities was dismissed. The testimonies from various witnesses corroborated the involvement of Laporbeda and Lasaga in the commission of these crimes, establishing their culpability for the property theft and kidnapping. Moreover, the defense's argument concerning a name discrepancy concerning Lasaga did not

...continue reading

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur is a legal research platform serving the Philippines with case digests and jurisprudence resources. AI digests are study aids only—use responsibly.