G.R. No. L-9537; October 29, 1914
THE UNITED STATES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. FLORENTINO CASSION and SABINO APDUHAN, defendants-appellants.

FACTS:
Ong Jong Sing, a Chinaman in charge of a store (tienda) in Agusan, was found dead in an adjoining room with a fatal head wound inflicted by a sharp weapon. The store’s iron safe was found unlocked, and the owner later reported missing approximately P500 in cash and P100 worth of jewelry. Traces of blood were found in and around the store leading toward the town.
Defendants Florentino Cassion, Sabino Apduhan, Jacinto Olano, and Asuncion Calo were charged with robo con homicidio. After trial, the court convicted Cassion and Apduhan, sentencing Cassion to death and Apduhan to life imprisonment, while acquitting Olano and Calo.
The prosecution’s evidence included: the discovery in Apduhan’s trunk of perfume bottles and heelplates similar to items sold in the victim’s store; a bloodstained Constabulary shirt belonging to Olano; a kris owned by Cassion capable of inflicting the fatal wound; testimony placing Apduhan and Olano near the store, and Cassion with his concubine Calo near the store, on the night of the crime; testimony that Cassion and Calo returned home around 2 a.m., with Cassion telling Calo not to tell anyone what happened; the discovery of what appeared to be bloodstains on the stairs of Calo’s and Cassion’s houses; Cassion’s debt to the store; his gambling losses shortly after the crime; and Olano’s extrajudicial statement (which he later recanted) implicating Apduhan and Cassion.
The defense presented witnesses to refute the allegations, including Olano’s denial of his prior statement, alibi witnesses, and evidence attacking the credibility of prosecution witnesses.

ISSUE:
Was the evidence presented by the prosecution sufficient to prove the guilt of appellants Florentino Cassion and Sabino Apduhan beyond a reasonable doubt for the crime of robo con homicidio?

RULING:
NO. The Supreme Court REVERSED the judgment of the trial court and ACQUITTED appellants Cassion and Apduhan.
The Court held the evidence entirely insufficient to sustain a conviction beyond a reasonable doubt. The evidence was circumstantial and did not conclusively connect the appellants to the crime.
As to Apduhan, the only competent evidence was the discovery of perfume and heelplates in his trunk. His explanation for possessing them (purchased from a Chinaman and Bohol peddlers) was not rebutted. There was no proof these items were specifically stolen from the victim’s store, as such merchandise could be obtained elsewhere. The extrajudicial statement of his co-accused Olano was inadmissible against him absent proof of conspiracy.
As to Cassion, the evidence was likewise insufficient. The testimony about his movements with his concubine, even if accepted, did not conclusively establish his guilt but at most implied the woman’s possible involvement. Evidence concerning his clean clothes, gambling losses, advice to co-accused, ownership of the kris found in his employees’ house, and bloodstains on his stairs lacked significance without proof of conspiracy or direct evidence connecting him to the crime. Olano’s extrajudicial statement was also inadmissible against Cassion.
The Court concluded that the evidence only raised suspicion but did not meet the high standard of proof required for a criminal conviction, especially one involving the death penalty. Appellants were ordered set at liberty immediately.