FACTS:
The accused, Sixto Galuran (a porter at Smith, Bell and Co. warehouse), Dizon, and Sy-Yoc, were charged with robbery involving P37 worth of property from an inhabited building, perpetrated with the use of false keys. Galuran and Dizon pleaded guilty, while Sy-Yoc appealed his conviction. The trial court declared Sy-Yoc a principal by instigation, and Galuran and Dizon principals by direct participation.

Evidence showed that Sy-Yoc approached Galuran, proposing that Galuran steal cases of whiskey from the warehouse and bring them to Sy-Yoc’s house, for which Sy-Yoc would pay P16 per case. When Galuran expressed ignorance on how to do it, Sy-Yoc instructed him to take an impression of the warehouse key in soap paste and have a false key made by a locksmith, offering to pay for the locksmith’s services. Galuran complied, taking the impression to Sy-Yoc, who then had a key made and paid the locksmith. This first key failed to open the warehouse, so Galuran had a second key made. Using this second key, Galuran, assisted by Dizon, opened the warehouse and took two cases of whiskey. They immediately transported the stolen cases to Sy-Yoc’s establishment, where they were apprehended by a secret-service agent while in the act of depositing the cases. Sy-Yoc’s motion for a new trial, alleging newly discovered evidence, was denied by the lower court.

ISSUE:
Whether Sy-Yoc is guilty as a principal by instigation for the crime of robbery.

RULING:
The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the lower court.

The Court found that the proven facts clearly established Sy-Yoc’s guilt as the instigator of the crime. Sy-Yoc initiated the robbery, conceived its commission, and employed Galuran, impelling him to execute the crime by promising payment (P16 per case). To further induce Galuran, Sy-Yoc demonstrated how easily the crime could be accomplished, instructed him on the means (taking a key impression and having a false key made), and offered money to cover the cost of the false key. These actions constituted “real inducement made directly for the commission of the said robbery,” placing Sy-Yoc in the position of a principal in accordance with paragraph 2 of Article 13 of the Penal Code.

The Court also agreed with the lower court’s ruling that the motion for a new trial was properly denied, as the alleged new evidence was not of such consequence as to alter the merits of the case in favor of the appellant.

Therefore, the judgment of the lower court was affirmed, with costs against the appellant.