Filoteo vs. Sandiganbayan, G.R. No.

79543,
October 16, 1996
SEPTEMBER 16, 2018

FACTS:

Petitioner was charged with hijacking a Delivery Truck of the Bureau of Post along MacArthur
Highway in Meycauayan, Bulacan, together with ten others, in that on May 3, 1982, the accused,
two of whom were armed with guns, stopped the Delivery Truck at gunpoint, and then robbed
and carried away the truck with them, including Social Security System Medicare Checks and
Vouchers, Social Security System Pension Checks and Vouchers Treasury Warrants, and several
Mail Matters from abroad worth P253,728.29 belonging to US Government Pensionados, SSS
Pensionados, SSS Medicare Beneficiaries and Private Individuals.

Based on a signed confession, the Sandiganbayan, on June 18, 1987, convicted petitioner and his
cohorts as co-principals for the violation of Section 2 (e), in relation to Section 3 (b) of
Presidential Decree No. 532, or Anti-Piracy and Anti-Highway Robbery Law of 1974.

ISSUES

1. Whether a petition can be treated alternatively as filed under either Rule 45 or Rule 65 – YES
2. Whether the crime committed was Brigandage or Robbery – ROBBERY

RATIO:

1. Yes, The petition was erroneously filed under Rule 65 when it should be filed under Rule
45. In any case, the Court brushed aside this procedural defect because of the important issues
the petition raised.

The Supreme Court may dismiss the petition by treating it as having been erroneously filed
under Rule 65 when the proper remedy is Rule 45.

The petition submitted alternatively under either rule 45 or rule 65 gave the Supreme Court the
prerogative to decide how to treat said petition, and may dismiss the petition on the grounds that
it is unqualified for the rule that the court decided the petition falls under. The petition was
considered as one for review on certiorari under Rule 45 as in Jariol, Jr. vs. Sandiganbayan,
because under P.D. No. 1486, amended by P.D. No. 1606, which created the Sandiganbayan,
specified that decisions and final orders of the Sandiganbayan shall be subject to review on
certiorari by the Supreme Court, ruling out a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 because
certiorari may be invoked only where there is no other plain, speedy or adequate remedy.
This petition could have been dismissed on these grounds but due to the importance of the issues
raised, the Court assumed jurisdiction.

2. The crime committed was Robbery because there was no proof that the group was formed
for multiple indiscriminate instances of robbery.

The Court believes that the question of which law was violated by the accused should be
discussed and passed upon even if it was not raised as an issue and not argued by the parties in
their pleadings as it may have reduced the petitioner’s penalty.

That P.D. No. 532, otherwise known as the Anti-Piracy and Anti-Highway Robbery Law of
1974, assumed to have been the statute violated, because the robbery was perpetrated on a
national highway (McArthur Highway), has been debunked by the Supreme Court in the case of
People vs. Isabelo Puno, where it was ruled in that it takes more than the site of the robbery to
bring it within the ambit of PD 532. The Brigandage Law is to prevent the formation of bands of
robbers that were purposely organized for several indiscriminate commissions of robbery. It
would not be necessary to show that a member or members of the band actually committed
robbery or kidnapping or any other purpose attainable by violent means. The crime is proven
when the organization and purpose of the band are shown to be such as are contemplated by art.
306. But, if robbery is committed by a band, the crime would be only robbery.

There had been no evidence presented that the accused were a band of outlaws organized for
such purpose as well as of any previous attempts at similar robberies by the accused to show the
“indiscriminate” commission thereof. Instead the evidence proved that robbery was committed as
defined in Art. 293 in relation to Art. 295 and punished by Art. 244, par. 5, all of the Revised
Penal Code that personal property belonging to another were unlawfully taken by the accused
with intent to gain with intimidation against three persons (Art. 293) in an uninhabited place, or
by an band, or by attacking a moving motor vehicle on a highway; and the intimidation was
made with the use of firearms (Art. 295).