Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 45 views

    UNITED STATES v. FELIPE DEDULO G.R. No. 10486 August 10, 1915 PDF

    Uploaded by

    Ivan Angelo Apostol
    Three municipal policemen were charged with robbery after falsely accusing three Chinese men in a store of possessing opium, threatening them with arrest unless they paid 300 pesos, and obtaining 200 pesos through intimidation. The trial court found the policemen guilty based on testimony that they had no legitimate reason to arrest the men and secured the money through threats while pretending to be officers of the law. The appellate court affirmed the conviction, holding that pretending to be a police officer and obtaining money through threats of arrest is robbery by force and intimidation.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    UNITED STATES v. FELIPE DEDULO G.R. No. 10486 August 10, 1915 PDF

    Uploaded by

    Ivan Angelo Apostol
    45 views3 pages
    Three municipal policemen were charged with robbery after falsely accusing three Chinese men in a store of possessing opium, threatening them with arrest unless they paid 300 pesos, and obtaining 200 pesos through intimidation. The trial court found the policemen guilty based on testimony that they had no legitimate reason to arrest the men and secured the money through threats while pretending to be officers of the law. The appellate court affirmed the conviction, holding that pretending to be a police officer and obtaining money through threats of arrest is robbery by force and intimidation.

    Original Title

    UNITED STATES v. FELIPE DEDULO G.R. No. 10486 August 10, 1915.pdf

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Three municipal policemen were charged with robbery after falsely accusing three Chinese men in a store of possessing opium, threatening them with arrest unless they paid 300 pesos, and obtaining 200 pesos through intimidation. The trial court found the policemen guilty based on testimony that they had no legitimate reason to arrest the men and secured the money through threats while pretending to be officers of the law. The appellate court affirmed the conviction, holding that pretending to be a police officer and obtaining money through threats of arrest is robbery by force and intimidation.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf or txt
    45 views3 pages

    UNITED STATES v. FELIPE DEDULO G.R. No. 10486 August 10, 1915 PDF

    Uploaded by

    Ivan Angelo Apostol
    Three municipal policemen were charged with robbery after falsely accusing three Chinese men in a store of possessing opium, threatening them with arrest unless they paid 300 pesos, and obtaining 200 pesos through intimidation. The trial court found the policemen guilty based on testimony that they had no legitimate reason to arrest the men and secured the money through threats while pretending to be officers of the law. The appellate court affirmed the conviction, holding that pretending to be a police officer and obtaining money through threats of arrest is robbery by force and intimidation.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf or txt
    of 3

    EN BANC

    [G.R. No. 10486. August 10, 1915. ]


    THE UNITED STATES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. FELIPE DEDULO, SILVINO DINGCON,
    and PEDRO SALARDA, Defendants-Appellants.
    Perfecto J. Salas Rodriguez for Appellants.
    Acting Attorney-General Zaragoza for Appellee.
    SYLLABUS
    1. ROBBERY; ILLEGAL ARREST. A policeman who, knowing that a person has committed
    no crime for which he could be lawfully arrested and tried, nevertheless arrests such person,
    falsely accusing him of a crime, and then by means of threats of presentation and imprisonment,
    thus playing upon his ignorance and fear, obtains money from such person, secures such money
    by force and intimidation and commits the crime of robbery as defined in the Penal Code.
    DECISION
    JOHNSON, J. :
    These defendants were charged with the crime of robbery The complaint alleged: "That on or
    about the 25th of February of the present year, 1914, within the district of this municipality of
    Iloilo, Province of Iloilo, Philippine Islands, the said accused, being municipal policemen of
    Iloilo and availing themselves of their character of public officers, did willfully, unlawfully, and
    criminally, with known premeditation and intent to derive unlawful gain, seize the sum of P200,
    the property of the Chinamen Haw You and Yap Tiao, through intimidation against persons,
    employing fraud and craft in the commission of the crime; with violation of law." (Page 1 of the
    record.)
    Upon said complaint the defendants were duly arrested, arraigned, tried, found guilty, and
    sentenced to be imprisoned for a period of seven years of prision mayor and to indemnify the
    offended persons in the sum of P200 and to pay the costs. From that sentence the defendants
    appealed to this court.
    The only question presented by the appellants here is one of fact. They allege that the proof
    adduced during the trial of the cause was not sufficient to show that they are guilty of the crime
    charged in the complaint.
    Judge J. S. Powell, who tried the defendants, who saw and heard the witnesses, in his decision
    said: "I have listened to the facts in this case twice, spending a whole day each time, and I am
    convinced that there is not the slightest doubt about the guilt of these defendants as charged."

    cralaw virtua1aw library

    After a careful examination of the evidence, we find that the following facts are proved beyond a
    reasonable doubt:
    chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

    1. That one Kong Tang is a Chinaman and the owner of a store or tienda in the barrio of LapusLapus in the municipality of Iloilo; that said tienda is located just across the river from the city of
    Iloilo.
    2. That on the night of the 25th of February, 1914, there were two other Chinamen in his store or
    tienda by the name of Haw You and Yap Tiao.
    3. That on said night of the 25th of February, 1914, the three defendants entered the house,
    tienda or store of Kong Tang, pretending to be policemen or officers of the law, and said that
    they desired to search the house of Kong Tang for opium.
    4. That the said defendants pretended to make a search of the house and pretended that they had
    found a bottle, after said search, and pretended to the Chinamen that the bottle contained opium.
    5. Upon finding the said bottle they notified the three persons in the house or tienda that they
    would have to accompany them; in other words, the defendants represented to the said Chinamen
    that they were placed under arrest.
    6. Later the defendants represented to the Chinamen if they would pay them P300, they would
    not arrest them. The Chinamen did not have the money. After some discussion and further
    threats on the part of the defendants, the Chinamen promised to pay to them, in order to be
    relieved from arrest, the sum of P200.
    7. The Chinamen did not have that amount of money in their possession. Kong Tang, in order to
    secure the money, sent his servant to the house of Kio Kiu to obtain the money. Kio Kiu refused
    to deliver the money to the servant. Later Kong Tang went personally to the house of Kio Kiu,
    and after explaining to him why he needed the said P200, Kio Kiu gave him said amount. Kong
    Tang then returned to his house or tienda and delivered the same to the defendants, whereupon
    the defendants left the tienda or store of Kong Tang and the incident was closed. Later the
    complaint above was presented against them. Judge Powell found that the defendants were guilty
    of the crime of robbery. From that decision the defendants appealed to this court.
    We think the rule is well established in this jurisdiction that one who obtains money by
    pretending to be an officer of the law by threats of arrest and imprisonment is guilty of the crime
    of robbery by force and intimidation. (U. S. v. Smith, 3 Phil. Rep., 20.)
    A policeman who knowing that a person has committed no crime for which he could be lawfully
    arrested and tried, nevertheless arrests such person, falsely accusing him of a crime, and then by
    means of threats of presentation and imprisonment, thus playing upon his ignorance and fear,
    obtains money from said person, secures such money by force and intimidation and commits the
    crime of robbery as defined in the Penal Code. (U. S. v. Fulgencio, 2 Phil. Rep., 452; U. S. v.
    Flores, 19 Phil. Rep., 178; U. S. v. Martin, 23 Phil. Rep., 58; 3 Viada, 341; decision of supreme

    court of Spain of June 24, 1875.)


    After a careful examination of the record brought to this court we find no reason for changing or
    modifying the sentence of the lower court, except that the imprisonment should be presidio
    mayor instead of prision mayor. With this modification, the sentence of the lower court is hereby
    affirmed with costs. So ordered.
    Arellano, C.J., Torres, Carson, Trent and Araullo, JJ., concur.

    You might also like