Republic of the Philippines

SUPREME COURT
Manila

EN BANC

G.R. No. 1445            March 17, 1904

THE UNITED STATES, complainant-appellee,

vs.
MARIANO FELICIANO, ET AL., defendants-appellants.

The defendants were prosecuted upon the following information filed by the fiscal of the Province of Rizal:

The undersigned charges Mariano Feliciano, Espiridion Tolentino, Eduardo Pascual, Pablo San Jose, and
Doroteo Jose (alias Mateo Tucmot) of the crime of robbery en cuadrilla, committed as follows: On the night
of May 25, 1903, the accused, together with several other persons, some of them disguised as members of
the similar police, being more than three in number and all armed with guns, revolvers, and knives,
assaulted the shop of the Chinamen Oa-Chio and Si-Cuingco, situated in the town of Cardona of this
Province of Rizal, Philippine Islands, and for the purpose of gain and by employing intimidation and force,
took the money and jewels which were in the said store; this against the statute in the case made and
provided.

The trial court convicted the defendants of the crime charged, with the aggravating circumstance of nocturnity, and
sentenced each of them to ten years of presidio mayor. Against this decision they appealed.

Lucio Villareal for appellants.

Office of the Solicitor-General for appellee.

ARELLANO, C.J.:

The facts proved are that the five defendants, at 11 o'clock at night, May 25, 1903, assaulted the store of some
Chinamen in the town of Cardona, Rizal, the defendants Feliciano and Tolentino being armed with revolvers and the
other three with bolos, and that they robbed the store of 248 pesos and other valuable property.

The five defendants are known to be inhabitants of the town in which the robbery was committed, and did not
constitute a known band of brigands. There was no agreement between them other than that reached for the
particular purpose of committing the crime of robbery in the store of the Chinamen. They were all seen in the town
on the day following the robbery. Consequently they are guilty of robbery en cuadrilla, within the meaning of the
terms as defined by article 505 of the Penal Code, and are liable to the penalty prescribed article 504 in connection
with paragraph 5 of article 503. There was no error in the finding of the court below that the offense was committed
with the aggravating circumstance of nocturnity.

We therefore affirm the judgment appealed by which the defendants were sentenced to ten years of presidio
mayor and to the payment of the costs in equal parts, and impose upon them the additional obligation of the return
of the money and property robbed, with the consequent accessory penalties, with the payment of the costs of this
instance in the same proportion.

Cooper, Mapa and McDonough, JJ., concur.

Separate Opinions

TORRES, WILLARD, and JOHNSON, JJ., dissenting:

We are of the opinion that the crime should be classed as brigandage and the defendants convicted in accordance
with the provisions of section 1 of Act No. 518, for the reasons stated in the dissenting opinion in the case of the
United States vs. Francisco Decusin,1 1 Official Gazette, No. 57, published October 7, 1903. See also the decision
in the case of the United States vs. Pedro Maano et al., 2 Official Gazette, No. 3, published January 20, 1904. 2

Footnotes

1
 2 Phil. Rep., 536.

2
 2 Phil. Rep., 718.