People v. Bermejo
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: On May 25, 1923, the defendants, a band of more than three individuals armed with deadly weapons, entered the house of Rita Dequina by scaling the window. Once inside, they opened a drawer with a false key and stole personal properties valued at P398 and P400 in cash, causing a total damage of P798. Procedural History: A complaint for robbery in a band was filed in the justice of the peace court of Saravia, Occidental Negros. After a preliminary examination, the case was forwarded to the Court of First Instance. An information was filed, later amended, charging the defendants with robo en cuadrilla. At the opening of the trial, separate proceedings were ordered for Dionisio Prunda due to his doubtful mental state, with the express conformity of the defendants' counsel. The trial proceeded against Sotero Bermejo, Eugenio Diopita, Federico Bravo, and Florencio Prunda. The trial court found them guilty of violating articles 502, 503(5), 504, and 505 of the Penal Code, with the aggravating circumstance of nocturnity, sentencing each to ten years of presidio mayor, jointly and severally indemnifying the offended person in P624, and paying costs. The Petition: The defendants appealed the sentence, assigning two errors: (I) the lower court erred in ordering a separate trial for Dionisio Prunda upon the fiscal's request and not the defense counsel's, rendering the sentence void; and (II) the lower court erred in sentencing them to ten years of presidio mayor.
Issue(s)
Whether the lower court erred in ordering separate proceedings for Dionisio Prunda. Whether the lower court erred in sentencing the defendants to ten years of presidio mayor.
Ruling
The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the lower court. The sentence imposed was upheld, with costs against the appellants.
Ratio Decidendi
On the first issue regarding separate proceedings for Dionisio Prunda: The Court found no merit in the first assignment of error. The record showed that at the opening of the trial, the provincial fiscal moved for separate proceedings against Dionisio Prunda, considering his doubtful mental condition and in the interest of the appellants. The defendants' counsel expressly conformed to this motion by stating "Sin objecion." Therefore, the separate trial was held with the express conformity of their counsel for their own benefit and not to prejudice their rights. The Court emphasized that there was absolutely no impairment of the appellants' rights due to this separate trial. On the second issue regarding the sentence: The Court addressed the contention that the appellants should be punished under article 503, paragraph 5, of the Penal Code, arguing that the robbery was not committed by a band because only three robbers were armed. Counsel overlooked the affidavits of the defendants before the justice of the peace, which were duly admitted in evidence. These affidavits clearly showed that Federico Bravo was armed with a revolver at the time of the robbery, along with Florencio Prunda (dagger) and Eugenio Diopita (bolo). Thus, the claim that Federico Bravo was not armed was untenable, and the commission of the crime by a band was established. Furthermore, the Court considered the defense's contention that the degree of instruction and education of the defendants should be a mitigating circumstance under article 11 of the Penal Code. Citing United States vs. Tampacan, the Court reiterated that it is within the discretion of the court whether to apply the provisions of article 11. Therefore, the Court abstained from interfering with the discretion exercised by the lower court in this regard.
Main Doctrine
The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction for robbery in a band, holding that the separate trial of a co-accused with the conformity of counsel was for the benefit of the appellants and did not prejudice their rights. The Court also found that all accused were armed, including Federico Bravo with a revolver, contrary to the defense's claim.