G.R. No. L-11042; November 18, 1916
THE UNITED STATES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. FELICISIMO BAGSIC, ET AL., defendants-appellants.

FACTS:
On the night of January 15, 1915, in Guimba, Nueva Ecija, an 80-year-old man, Juan de Ocampo, was assaulted while returning from a bakery. He was struck on the head with a club, rendering him unconscious, and robbed of P150.30 he was carrying in his pocketbook. The incident was reported, and proceedings were initiated against Felicisimo Bagsic, Juan de Guzman, Teofilo Lagman, and Doroteo Mendiola. The prosecution’s case relied heavily on the testimonies of three accomplicesBasilio Gamboa, Sixto Gamboa, and Clemente Caballerowho detailed a conspiracy where Mendiola orchestrated the robbery, Bagsic struck the victim, and Guzman and Mendiola took the money. The defendants presented alibis, claiming they were elsewhere at the time of the crime. The trial court convicted all four defendants of robbery with violence under Article 502, paragraph 4 of the Penal Code, sentencing each to 12 years and 1 day of cadena temporal. The defendants appealed, contesting the sufficiency of evidence and their conviction.

ISSUE:
1. Whether the trial court erred in denying the motion to dismiss based on alleged insufficiency of evidence.
2. Whether the conviction based primarily on the testimony of accomplices was valid.

RULING:
The Supreme Court AFFIRMED the conviction but MODIFIED the penalty.
1. The Court held that the trial court did not err in denying the motion to dismiss. The testimonies of the three accomplices were consistent, detailed, and credible. Their accounts were corroborated by the circumstances of the crime and the ineffectiveness of the defendants’ alibi defenses. The alibis were either contradicted by other evidence or failed to establish the physical impossibility of the defendants’ presence at the crime scene.
2. The Court ruled that a conviction can legally rest solely on the testimony of accomplices, provided such testimony is credible and satisfies the court beyond a reasonable doubt. The accomplices’ testimonies in this case, which were in agreement on essential points and described their own participation, were deemed worthy of credence and sufficient to sustain the conviction.
3. However, the Supreme Court modified the classification of the crime. The information charged only robbery with violence, not robbery with physical injuries resulting in deformity. Considering the slight nature of the victim’s ear injury, the crime was properly classified under Article 502, paragraph 5 of the Penal Code (robbery with violence or intimidation against persons), not paragraph 4. With the aggravating circumstance of nocturnity and no mitigating circumstances, the proper penalty was presidio correccional in its maximum degree to presidio mayor in its medium degree.
4. The Court thus modified the sentence to seven years of presidio mayor with the corresponding accessory penalties under Article 57 of the Penal Code, and affirmed the judgment in all other respects, including the order to return the stolen money and pay costs.