THE UNITED STATES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. MATIAS GRANADOSO, ET AL., defendants-appellants.
G.R. No. L-5762, August 5, 1910

FACTS::
The defendants, Matias Granadoso, Victoriano Soriano, and Modesto Cabalu, along with an escaped accomplice, were charged with robbery in band. On or about May 29, 1908, the defendants, all armed with bolos and with faces blackened, secreted themselves in an uninhabited place near the road between Tarlac and La Paz. They attacked four individuals (Julia Atienza, Adriano Valentino, Maximo Gamit, and Aurelia Aliega), demanding money. Upon finding the victims had no money, the defendants used violence and intimidation to take various effects worth approximately 60 centavos (Julia Atienza: 14 centavos, Aurelia Aliega: 35 centavos, and Maximo Gamit: a bolo worth P1.50). The crime was committed in an uninhabited place, and the defendants were disguised to avoid recognition and prevent victims from receiving assistance. Only Modesto Cabalu was identified by Adriano Fajardo. Prosecution witnesses Jose Guillermo and Epifanio Tacusalme testified that they were captured and forced to assist in the robbery by guarding the victims. The Court of First Instance found the defendants guilty as charged and sentenced each to ten years of presidio mayor, with accessories and indemnification. The defendants appealed, with their counsel not questioning guilt but arguing for a reduction of the penalty, insisting that the small value of the stolen effects should be a mitigating factor, while admitting the crime was robbery in band with the aggravating circumstance of disguise.

ISSUE::
1. Should the penalty for robbery in band be reduced based on the small value of the stolen effects, despite the presence of aggravating circumstances?
2. (Implicit) Was the guilt of the defendants established beyond reasonable doubt by the evidence, including accomplice testimony?

RULING::
The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the lower court.
1. The Court held that the greater or lesser value of the property stolen has no bearing on the penalty to be imposed in cases of robbery. The penalty is determined by the nature and circumstances of the crime, not solely by the value of the property taken.
2. The guilt of the defendants for robbery in band was established beyond reasonable doubt. The elements of robbery in band were proven, including the involvement of more than three armed malefactors. The testimony of accomplices, while subject to grave suspicion, is admissible and competent. Its lack of corroboration affects credibility but not competency or admissibility. In this case, the accomplice testimony was corroborated by the positive identification of one of the defendants by another witness, Adriano Fajardo.
3. The trial court properly considered the aggravating circumstances that the crime was committed in an uninhabited place and by defendants who were disguised. No extenuating circumstances were found to exist.

Therefore, the sentence of ten years of presidio mayor was upheld.