You're currently signed in as:
User
Add TAGS to your cases to easily locate them or to build your SYLLABUS.
Please SIGN IN to use this feature.
https://www.lawyerly.ph/juris/view/ce3f?user=fbGU2WFpmaitMVEVGZ2lBVW5xZ2RVdz09
[US v. SEVERINO BAROT](https://www.lawyerly.ph/juris/view/ce3f?user=fbGU2WFpmaitMVEVGZ2lBVW5xZ2RVdz09)
{case:ce3f}
Highlight text as FACTS, ISSUES, RULING, PRINCIPLES to generate case DIGESTS and REVIEWERS.
Please LOGIN use this feature.
Show printable version with highlights

[ GR No. 5596, Mar 15, 1910 ]

US v. SEVERINO BAROT +

DECISION

15 Phil. 463

[ G. R. No. 5596, March 15, 1910 ]

THE UNITED STATES, PLAINTIFF AND APPELLEE, VS. SEVERINO BAROT, DEFENDANT AND APPELLANT.

D E C I S I O N

MORELAND, J.:

The defendant was convicted of the crime of robbery in the Court of First  Instance of the Province  of Tarlac and, there being present the  aggravating circumstances of nocturnity and morada, was condemned to the penalty of eight years of presidio mayor, the accessories provided by  law, to indemnify the injured party in the sum of P4, and to pay the costs of the action.

It  appears that about 12 o'clock midnight of the  12th of May, 1908, two individuals entered the house of Dorotea de Luna, situated in the barrio of Sinigpit, in the Province of Tarlac,  and once inside discharged a  revolver  which they  had for the purpose of intimidating the occupants of the house;  that  the accused maltreated Dorotea de Luna and her daughter Pelagia Soberano with a bolo which he carried, while his companion took out of a tampipi in the house the sum of P4, all of the money which was  found in the house.

The  guilt of the  defendant Barot is clearly proved by the testimony of Dorotea de Luna and her daughter,  who identified positively the defendant as one of the two individuals who broke into the house; by the testimony of Carlos  Felio and  of Julian Taduan, a municipal policeman, who  testified that the defendant Barot freely and voluntarily,  without promise of  reward, and not  having  been threatened with violence or injury, confessed that he  was one of the parties who broke into and robbed the house of said Dorotea  de Luna.

It does not appear in the case that the crime was committed  by more than three  armed persons and, therefore, the crime charged in the complaint, namely, robo en cuadrilla, is not  sustained  by the proofs.  The  facts proved, however, constitute the crime of robbery with violence  and intimidation  of  the person,  which crime  is  defined  and punished in  subdivision  5 of article 503 of the Penal Code.

The guilt  of the defendant being clearly established  and the punishment prescribed by the court below being within the law, the judgment appealed from is affirmed, with costs against the  appellant.   So ordered.

Arellano, C. J., Torres, Mapa, Johnson, and Carson, JJ., concur.

tags