G.R. No. 1855 : January 23, 1905
THE UNITED STATES, complainant-appellee, vs. CATALINO COFRADA, defendant-appellant.

FACTS:
On the afternoon of December 10, 1903, in a deserted place called Mahabangtanao, Majayjay, Laguna, two men with blackened faces robbed three victims. One robber was armed with a bolo and a revolver, and the other with a bolo. Through violence and intimidation, they took cash amounting to 5.80 pesos, a penknife, a package of cigarettes, and a small mirror. The defendant, Catalino Cofrada, was charged with the crime. Three victims testified for the prosecution. One witness positively identified Cofrada as one of the robbers despite the disguise, knowing him previously and noting the tattooing on his hands. Another witness testified that one robber had tattooed hands similar to Cofrada’s. During trial, the judge ordered Cofrada to show his hands, which he did without objection, revealing tattoos that matched the witness’s description. The defense presented an alibi, which was contradicted by the prosecution’s witnesses and the defendant’s own testimony.

ISSUE:
1. Whether the trial court violated the rights of the accused by ordering him to show his tattooed hands.
2. Whether the evidence is sufficient to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt.
3. Whether the penalty and subsidiary imprisonment imposed by the trial court are correct.

RULING:
1. On the alleged violation of rights: The Supreme Court held that even assuming the accused had a right to refuse to show his hands, he voluntarily waived that right by complying with the court’s order without any protest or objection. Therefore, he cannot later object to the validity of the proceedings on that ground.
2. On the sufficiency of evidence: The Court found the evidence of guilt sufficient and credible. The positive identification by one witness, corroborated by the others who noted the similarity in build and the distinctive tattoos, established Cofrada’s participation beyond reasonable doubt. The defense’s alibi was weak, inconsistent, and unworthy of serious consideration.
3. On the penalty: The crime of robbery committed with violence and intimidation, aggravated by the circumstance of being committed in an uninhabited place and with the use of a disguise (blackened face), falls under Article 503, Section 5 of the Penal Code, punishable by presidio correccional to presidio mayor. Due to the aggravating circumstances, the penalty was properly imposed in its maximum degree (presidio mayor).
4. On the subsidiary imprisonment: The trial court erred in imposing subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency for the restitution. Under Article 51 of the Penal Code, subsidiary imprisonment is not allowed when the principal penalty imposed is higher than presidio correccional. Since presidio mayor was imposed, the order for subsidiary imprisonment was illegal.

DISPOSITIVE PORTION:
The judgment of conviction is AFFIRMED with the MODIFICATION that the portion sentencing the accused to subsidiary imprisonment is DELETED. Costs against the appellant.