People v. Cruz
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: The complaint charged the defendant with the violation of section 4 of Act No. 518, alleging that he had given information as to the movements of the Constabulary to a party of brigands and had furnished them with supplies and money. The court below found that the defendant obtained 25 pesos from Juan Dizon and sent it to Faustino Guillermo, the leader of a band of brigants. There was also evidence tending to show that about two months after the money was said to have been paid, the house of Juan Dizon was entered in the nighttime by a band of men, one of whom was the defendant, and money was taken therefrom by force and violence. Procedural History: The court below convicted the defendant of a violation of section 4 of Act No. 518 and sentenced him to fourteen years and six months of imprisonment. The Petition: The defendant appealed the decision of the court below.
Issue(s)
Whether the evidence was sufficient to prove that the defendant furnished money to a band of brigands. Whether a conviction for simple robbery is permissible under a complaint charging a violation of section 4 of Act No. 518 by furnishing information and supplies to brigands. Whether the offense of simple robbery is necessarily included in the offense of furnishing information and supplies to brigands.
Ruling
The judgment is reversed, and the defendant is acquitted with the costs of both instances de oficio, without prejudice to the presentation of another complaint against the defendant for simple robbery.
Ratio Decidendi
On the sufficiency of evidence for furnishing money: The Court expressed doubt as to the sufficiency of the evidence to prove the charge. Both the defendant and Juan Dizon, a witness for the Government, testified that no money was paid by the latter to the former. The only evidence presented were certain alleged confessions made by the defendant after his arrest to officers of the Constabulary. The Court found this evidence questionable. On conviction for simple robbery under a complaint for brigandage: The Court held that even if the money was paid by Dizon to the defendant and by him sent to Guillermo, this would not constitute an offense under section 4 of Act No. 518, citing previous cases. Furthermore, the complaint in the present case did not allege any act of robbery, nor did it allege that the defendant was a member of a band of brigands. The complaint was limited to charging the defendant with furnishing information and supplies. Therefore, under such a complaint, a defendant cannot be convicted of simple robbery as defined in the Penal Code. On whether simple robbery is necessarily included in the offense charged: The Court ruled that simple robbery is not necessarily included in the offense charged. The complaint gave the defendant no notice of the specific things to be proved against him. He was notified that the Government's evidence would be directed to proving that he furnished information or supplies to a band of brigands. At the trial, he found that the evidence related to a robbery committed in a specific house at a designated time. This last offense is not necessarily included in the offense charged, thus violating the defendant's right to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation against him.
Main Doctrine
A defendant cannot be convicted of simple robbery under a complaint that alleges only the furnishing of information and supplies to a band of brigands, as such an offense is not necessarily included in the offense charged and deprives the defendant of notice of the specific things to be proved against him.