FACTS:

Alfonso Melegrito and Catalino Melegrito were charged with the crime of robbery in an armed gang (robo en cuadrilla) with violence or intimidation of “gravity manifestly unnecessary for its execution” (Paragraph 4 of Article 503 of the Penal Code). The complaint alleged that between 10 and 11 p.m. on March 15, 1907, in Mabanengbeng, Baclotan, La Union, the accused, accompanied by two unknown men and armed, entered the dwelling of Teodoro Dacanay. They took personal property valued at 1,028 pesetas by means of violence and intimidation. The evidence showed that the accused pushed Dacanay into a corner, poked his back with a bolo (causing no wound), and made him lie down and cover himself. The trial court found the accused clearly and positively identified by witnesses and convicted them as charged, imposing a penalty of nine years of presidio mayor.

ISSUE:

1. Whether the identification of the accused by the prosecution witnesses was accurate.
2. Whether the crime committed qualified as “robbery in an armed gang” (robo en cuadrilla) under Article 505 of the Penal Code.
3. Whether the violence or intimidation employed was of “gravity manifestly unnecessary for the execution of the crime” under Paragraph 4 of Article 503 of the Penal Code.

RULING:

In a decision rendered on September 7, 1908, in the case of THE UNITED STATES vs. ALFONSO MELEGRITO, ET AL., with G.R. No. 4487 , the Supreme Court ruled as follows:

1. The Court sustained the trial court’s finding on the accuracy of the identification, agreeing that the accused were “clearly and positively identified” by credible witnesses.
2. The Court found that the crime did not qualify as “robbery in an armed gang” (robo en cuadrilla). While evidence showed that at least three members of the party were armed, it failed to establish that “more than three” of the malefactors were armed, which is the specific requirement of Article 505 of the Penal Code to constitute a cuadrilla.
3. The Court also held that the violence employed (pushing the victim into a corner and poking him with a bolo without causing a wound) was not of “gravity manifestly unnecessary for the execution of the crime.” This act was deemed insufficient to bring the offense under Paragraph 4 of Article 503.

Therefore, the Supreme Court reversed the judgment of the trial court regarding the specific classification of the crime, and instead convicted the appellants of simple robbery, as defined in Paragraph 5 of Article 503 of the Penal Code. The aggravating circumstances of nocturnity (committed at night) and dwelling (committed in the house of the offended person) were present, mandating the imposition of the penalty in its maximum degree. The penalty of nine years of presidio mayor imposed by the trial court was within the limits prescribed for simple robbery in its maximum degree, and thus, the same penalty was imposed upon the appellants.