Here is a formal digest of the provided case text:

FACTS

The defendants, L. V. Smith and Mateo Bacani, were charged with the crime of robbery. Evidence presented indicated that on the night of October 14, 1905, the defendants, one armed with a revolver, entered the house of Domingo Ocampo in Pampanga. Through threats and intimidation, they forced Ocampo and another individual, Severo Mañgila, to exit the house. Mateo Bacani then entered the house, while L. V. Smith guarded the two men. Bacani, using threats and intimidation, compelled the women in the house to surrender P8, which was all the money they possessed. The lower court sentenced both defendants to eight years of presidio mayor and imposed other penalties. Mateo Bacani appealed, but later moved to dismiss his appeal, which was granted. Subsequently, L. V. Smith sought a new trial based on an affidavit from Mateo Bacani claiming Smith did not participate in the robbery, but was accompanied by someone named Thomas. However, the court noted that Bacani had previously testified denying his involvement in the crime during the lower court trial, and his current affidavit’s claims were not new facts discovered after the trial.

ISSUE

Whether or not the motion for a new trial filed by the defendant L. V. Smith, based on an affidavit from a co-defendant Mateo Bacani, should be granted, considering Bacani’s prior testimony and the nature of the alleged new evidence.

RULING

The motion for a new trial is denied. The Supreme Court found that the facts stated in Mateo Bacani’s affidavit do not constitute newly discovered evidence since Bacani had previously testified during the trial in the lower court. The Court independently examined the evidence and found L. V. Smith guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. The Court also determined that the crime, committed at night and at the dwelling of the offended parties, warranted aggravating circumstances. Consequently, the sentence for L. V. Smith was modified and increased to ten years of presidio mayor, with accessory penalties, indemnification to the offended persons in the sum of P8, and payment of half the costs. The sentence of the lower court, with these modifications, was affirmed.