G.R. No. L-3906
THE UNITED STATES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. JACINTO PAGUIA, ET AL., defendants, V LIM TICO and UY SIA, appellants.
February 5, 1908

FACTS:
On the night of October 27, 1906, or early the following morning, the accused, including appellants Vicente Lim Tico and Uy Sia, destroyed the lock and padlock of a warehouse belonging to Lutz and Co. in Calle Barraca, Binondo. They entered, opened merchandise cases, and stole various articles valued at P3,406.25. The stolen goods were loaded into a carretela driven by Anastasio Sunauan, and transported in two trips to a house in Calle Lemery or Ilaya, occupied by Chinaman Uy Sia, where they concealed the goods. The thieves paid Sunauan and urged him to secrecy. However, Sunauan informed a relative, who reported the incident to the police.

Detectives found a portion of the stolen goods in Uy Sia’s house and arrested several individuals, including Lim Tico and Uy Sia, who were caught packing the merchandise. During the arrest, Lim Tico offered a bribe to the policeman. In the Court of First Instance, Lim Tico and Uy Sia were charged with robbery and subsequently sentenced to five years and nine months each of presidio correccional. They appealed their conviction. The prosecution’s evidence included direct identification by the carretela driver, Sunauan, and the arresting policeman, and the fact that the appellants were found with the stolen goods. The aggravating circumstance of nocturnity was also noted. Lim Tico’s alibi and Uy Sia’s partial denial of involvement were rejected by the trial court.

ISSUE:
Were the appellants, Vicente Lim Tico and Uy Sia, correctly convicted as co-principals of robbery, and was the penalty imposed proper?

RULING:
Yes. The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the Court of First Instance, holding that the culpability of appellants Vicente Lim Tico and Uy Sia as co-principals of the robbery was “unquestionable.” The Court found that the evidence, including the direct identification by the carretela driver and the arresting policeman, and their being surprised while packing the stolen goods in Uy Sia’s house, sufficiently established their guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. The Court also confirmed the presence of the aggravating circumstance of nocturnity, as the thieves deliberately availed themselves of the darkness and silence of night to commit the crime, with no mitigating circumstances present.

The Court affirmed the penalty of five years and nine months of presidio correccional but additionally sentenced the appellants to the accessory penalties of Article 58 of the Penal Code, to return the unrecovered stolen property or its value to the owners, and in case of insolvency, to suffer subsidiary imprisonment not exceeding one year. They were also ordered to pay a portion of the costs incurred in both judicial instances.