G.R. No. L-3951
THE UNITED STATES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. FELICIANO GARCIA, ET AL., defendants-appellants.
March 14, 1908

FACTS:
The crime of robbery, as charged, was proven at trial. The main question on appeal revolved around the identification of the appellants as members of the band who committed the offense.

1. Simeon de los Santos: His counsel argued that his confession made in the court of the justice of the peace was improperly admitted because its voluntariness was not affirmatively established.
2. Feliciano Garcia: His counsel pointed out that a co-accused, Alberto Tolentino, was acquitted despite being identified by witness Soto, while Garcia was convicted based on the same witness’s testimony. Counsel argued that if Soto’s testimony was not accepted for Tolentino, it should not be accepted for Garcia.
3. Garcia, Gutierrez, and De los Santos: Their counsel on appeal requested a new trial, claiming that their original trial counsel fell ill before the trial, thus preventing them from securing the presence of their witnesses. The record shows that new counsel was assigned by the court, but no effort was made to secure witnesses or move for a continuance for that purpose during the trial.

ISSUE:
1. Whether the appellants were sufficiently identified as members of the robbery band.
2. Whether Simeon de los Santos’ confession was voluntarily made and properly admitted in evidence.
3. Whether the trial court erred in convicting Feliciano Garcia based on a witness’s testimony, given that the same witness’s identification of a co-accused led to the latter’s acquittal.
4. Whether the appellants are entitled to a new trial on appeal due to their alleged inability to secure witnesses during the trial.

RULING:
The Supreme Court AFFIRMED the judgment and sentence of the trial court.

1. The Court found that the identification of each appellant by the prosecution witnesses was conclusive and left no room for reasonable doubt that they were members of the band who committed the robbery.
2. Regarding Simeon de los Santos’ confession, the Court found that the testimony of witnesses Kerr, Hutchings, and Urquico left no doubt that the confession was made voluntarily. Additionally, witness Soto positively identified de los Santos as one of the robbers.
3. Regarding Feliciano Garcia’s conviction, the Court held that the trial judge properly differentiated between the identification of Garcia and Tolentino. While the witness was clear, positive, and definite in identifying Garcia, there was doubt, uncertainty, and hesitation in identifying Tolentino. The trial judge correctly gave Tolentino the benefit of the doubt arising from the witness’s hesitation, but there was no reason to doubt the identification of Garcia, as the witness was positive and definite about him.
4. Regarding the request for a new trial, the Court ruled that appellants in a criminal case cannot complain for the first time on appeal about their inability to secure witnesses at trial if they made no effort to do so before or during the trial, did not seek the court’s aid to compel attendance, or object to proceeding without them, especially when new counsel had been assigned to them.