G.R. No. 3971

THE UNITED STATES, PLAINTIFF AND APPELLEE, VS. HILARIO BRAGANZA AND MARTIN SAMBIO, DEFENDANTS AND APPELLANTS. D E C I S I O N

[ G.R. No. 3971. February 03, 1908 ] 10 Phil. 79

[ G.R. No. 3971. February 03, 1908 ]

THE UNITED STATES, PLAINTIFF AND APPELLEE, VS. HILARIO BRAGANZA AND MARTIN SAMBIO, DEFENDANTS AND APPELLANTS. D E C I S I O N

WILLARD, J.:

We take the same view of this case as to the guilt of the defendants as that taken by the Attorney-General.  He says in  his brief:

“Article 200 of the Penal Code reads: " ‘The public official who, unless it be by reason of a crime, should detain a person without being authorized to do so by a law, or by regulations of a general character in force in the Philippines, shall incur the penalty of a line of from 325 to 3,250 pesetas if the detention should not have exceeded three days; *  *  *.’ “At the time when the crime herein was committed the accused were municipal officials, Hilario Braganza being then a councilor of the municipality of Sagay and Martin Salibio a lieutenant of the barrio of Vito in said municipality ; therefore, they were public officers  *  *  * “There is no doubt as  to the accused having detained Father  Feliciano Gomez, inasmuch  as,  according to the evidence, they themselves seized  him within  the church and took him out of it, telling  him that he was under arrest; they made him pass through the door of the vestry and afterwards took him to the  municipal building and there  told him that he was under arrest  *  *  *.  The accused detained Father Gomez, not  by  reason of a crime but arbitrarily.  He had committed no crime, rather on the contrary, he was the victim of coercion and other outrages.   As a priest of the Roman Church, and the question herein referring also to a Roman church  which he is alleged to be in possession of, he went there to say mass, but a group of Aglipayano women violently prevented him from carrying out his purpose.  No law or regulation of a general character in force authorizes the accused to commit the act which they committed  *  *  *.”

The judgment of the court below is affirmed, without taking into consideration, however, article 11 of the Penal Code as an extenuating circumstance.  So ordered. Arellano, C. J., Torres, Mapa, Johnson, and Tracey, JJ., concur.