A.1 Us Vs Pagdayuman

8/12/2016
PHILIPPINEREPORTSANNOTATEDVOLUME005
VOL. 5, NOVEMBER 11, 1905
265
United States vs. Pagdayuman
[No. 2008. November 11, 1905.]

THE UNITED STATES, plaintiff and appellee, vs.
EUGENIO PAGDAYUMAN ET AL., defendants and
appellants.
1. JURISDICTION JUDGES AND COURTS.Jurisdiction
is the power conferred by law upon a judge or court to try
a case the cognizance of which belongs to them
exclusively.
2. ORGANIZATION OF COURTS FIRST INSTANCE
COURTS.There shall be a Court of First Instance in
each province where civil government has been
established or is to be established as well as in the city of
Manila. (Secs. 1, 48, and 49 of Act No. 136 providing for
the organization of courts in the Philippine Islands.)
3. JUDICIAL DISTRICTS.Act No. 140 provides that the
city of Manila shall constitute a judicial district and that
the other fourteen judicial districts shall be respectively
composed of the provinces and islands of the Archipelago
included therein.
4. JURISDICTION LIMITS.The jurisdiction of a judge
who presides over the court of a judicial district shall be
http://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001567ea2438dda1e3161003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False
1/7
8/12/2016
exercised within the territorial limits of the respective

provinces. This jurisdiction shall not be extended beyond
the limits of his district nor shall the judge having such
jurisdiction try cases the cognizance of which. belongs
exclusively to another judge.
5. ID. CRIMINAL CASES.All criminal cases shall be tried
at the place designated by law as that in which the
sessions of the court having jurisdiction thereof should be
held. (Sec. 6 of Act No. 140.)
6. ID. ID. PROCEEDINGS NULLITY.Proceedings in a
criminal case shall be null and void where the judge had
no jurisdiction to try the same and upon dismissal of the
case new proceedings may be commenced in the competent
court. (Sec. 23, General Orders, No. 58.)
7. ID. BRIGANDAGE.Section 3 of Act No. 518 provides
that any Court of First Instance shall have jurisdiction to
try cases for brigandage where the defendant was arrested
within the territorial limits of the court or where the
prisoner accused of such crime escaped from the provincial
jail, notwithstanding the facts that the crime was not
committed within such province.
APPEAL from a judgment of the Court of First Instance of

Manila.
The f acts are stated in the opinion of the court.
Thomas L. Hartigan, for appellants,
SolicitorGeneral Araneta, for appellee.
266
266
PHILIPPINE REPORTS ANNOTATED

2/7
8/12/2016
TORRES, J.:
On December 18, 1903, Eugenio Pagdayuman, Roque de
Vega, Pedro Lopez, Crispulo del Mundo, Gabino de los
Santos, and Pedro de los Santos were charged with the
crime of brigandage. The information alleges that on or
about the 1st of April, 1903, and for many months prior
thereto, the defendants willfully and feloniously entered
into a conspiracy to organize a band of brigands, with
Luciano San Miguel, Faustino Guillermo, Ciriaco
Contreras, Apolonio Samson, Miguel Capistrano, Alejandro
Santos, Tomas de Guzman, Fabian Concepcin, Andres
Roque, Major Basilio, Captain Memong, Licerio Bolaos,
Ceferino de la Cruz, and other unknown persons, within
the city of Manila and within the police zone of that city for
the purpose of stealing carabaos and other personal
property by means of force and violence, going upon the
highways and roaming over the country armed with deadly
weapons, and committing other plundering acts within the
city of Manila and the police jurisdiction of that city and of
the Court of First Instance thereof, contrary to the statute
in such cases made and provided.
Proceedings were commenced by the filing of an
information, and as a result of the evidence adduced the
judge, on March 12, 1904, sentenced Eugenio Pagdayuman
and Pedro Lopez each to twentyfive years' imprisonment
at hard labor and Roque Vega and Crispulo del Mundo
each to twenty years' imprisonment at hard labor, and each
to pay onesixth of the costs, the remaining twosixths of
the costs de oficio. The case against Gabino de los Santos
and Pedro de los Santos was dismissed on account of the
insufficiency of the evidence as to them (p. 33).
It appears from the record that during the latter part of
the year 1902 and the early part of the year 1903 there
were in the environs of the city of Manila and neighboring
towns several bands of robbers, armed with weapons of
every description, lead by such outlaws as Julian Santos,
3/7
8/12/2016
Apolonio Samson, Faustino Guillermo, Ciriaco Contreras,

Vicente del Mundo, Miguel Capistrano, and one socalled
Major Basilio, under the supreme command of the self
267
VOL. 5, NOVEMBER 11, 1905
267
styled General Luciano San Miguel. These bands operated

either jointly or independently of each other but at all
times made attacks upon women and other peaceful
inhabitants of the towns, having committed several
murders and resisted the officers of the law and robbed the
people of their money, clothes, jewels, rice, cloth, shoes, and
other property. They also took possession of the arms of the
police during their attacks upon the towns of Meycauayan,
Marilao, Bagbag, Corralnabato, and other towns in the
Province of Bulacan, and in Cainta, Antipolo, Bosoboso,
Malabon, Pasig, Taytay, Bagong Bato, and Santa Rosa in
the Province of Rizal, as testified to by the witnesses Juan
Zorrilla, Miguel Pascual, Melcadias Santiago, Enrique
Pasion, Bernardo de Leon, Gervasio Domingo, Gervasio
Jimenez, and Charles J. Bates, the latter a Constabulary
officer.
It was also proved that Pedro Lopez and Roque de Vega
were members of a large band of brigands armed with rifles
under the leadership of Luciano San Miguel. Although
these defendants had been seen at times with the section of
the band commanded by Faustino Guillermo and at times
with the section lead by Julian Santos, there is no doubt,
however, that they participated in the acts committed by
the various sections of the band which acted either jointly
or separately, they having taken part in the attacks made
upon Bagbag, Corralnabato, Cainta, Antipolo, Bosoboso,
Malabon, Meycauayan, Bahay Pare, and other places, as
4/7
8/12/2016
testified to by Miguel Pascual, Enrique Pasion, Gervasio

Domingo, and Gervasio Jimenez, who formerly belonged to
the same band as Pedro Lopez and Roque de Vega.
It was thus proved that Pedro Lopez and Roque de Vega
belonged to a band of brigands composed of men who,
claiming to be insurgents, carried various kinds of weapons
and roamed over the country, attacking and robbing
peaceful inhabitants and resisting by force of arms the
officers of the law charged with the maintenance of order
and the protection of the lives and property of the people.
The accused are guilty of the crime of brigandage and
should
268
268
PHILIPPINE REPORTS ANNOTATED

be punished under section 1 of Act No. 518. They

voluntarily joined the band and took part in some of the
acts committed by its various sections.
Although these acts were not committed within the
limits of the city of Manila but in the municipalities of the
Provinces of Bulacan and Rizal, it appears that Roque de
Vega was arrested in the vicinity of the San Lazaro
Hospital, between the districts of Tondo and Santa Cruz,
and that Pedro Lopez was captured in San Francisco del
Monte, Sampaloc district. The Court of First Instance of
the city of Manila had therefore jurisdiction to try and
decide this case, in accordance with the provisions of
section 3 of Act No. 518.
As to the other defendantsEugenio Pagdayuman,
arrested in Caloocan, Rizal, and Crispulo del Mundo,
arrested in Meycauayan, Bulacanthe Court of First
Instance of this city had no jurisdiction to try them. We are
therefore of opinion that all the proceedings with respect to
5/7
8/12/2016
these two def endants were null and void and that the case
should be dismissed as to them, following
the decisions in
1
the cases of Maximo
Austria,
No.
2371,
and
Bernabe de la
2
Cruz, No. 2262, both for brigandage.
Pedro Lopez and Roque de Vega are accordingly
sentenced each to twenty year's imprisonment and to pay
onesixth of the costs. The case in so far as it relates to
Eugenio Pagdayuman and Crispulo del Mundo is dismissed
with costs de oficio, without prejudice, however, to the
filing of a new complaint against them f or the same offense
in the Courts of First Instance of Rizal and Bulacan,
respectively. The judges of those courts and the
SolicitorGeneral will be notified of this decision. The
judgment of the court below thus modified is affirmed. So
ordered.
Arellano, C. J., Mapa, Carson, and Willard, JJ.,
concur.
Johnson, J., dissents as to the defendants Eugenio
Pagdayuman and Crispulo del Mundo.
Judgment modified.
_______________
1Page
2
272, post.
Not published.
269
Copyright2016CentralBookSupply,Inc.Allrightsreserved.
6/7
8/12/2016
7/7

A.1 Us Vs Pagdayuman

Enviado por

Dados do documento

Título original

Direitos autorais

Formatos disponíveis

Compartilhar este documento

Compartilhar ou incorporar documento

Opções de compartilhamento

Você considera este documento útil?

Este conteúdo é inapropriado?

Direitos autorais:

Formatos disponíveis

A.1 Us Vs Pagdayuman

Enviado por

Direitos autorais:

Formatos disponíveis

8/12/2016

VOL. 5, NOVEMBER 11, 1905

United States vs. Pagdayuman

[No. 2008. November 11, 1905.]

exercised within the territorial limits of the respective

APPEAL from a judgment of the Court of First Instance of

PHILIPPINE REPORTS ANNOTATED

Apolonio Samson, Faustino Guillermo, Ciriaco Contreras,

VOL. 5, NOVEMBER 11, 1905

United States vs. Pagdayuman

styled General Luciano San Miguel. These bands operated

testified to by Miguel Pascual, Enrique Pasion, Gervasio

PHILIPPINE REPORTS ANNOTATED

be punished under section 1 of Act No. 518. They

Você também pode gostar