G.R. No. L-6613 / October 24, 1911
THE UNITED STATES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. LEE SEE (alias TUYA), defendant-appellant.

FACTS

On May 26, 1910, in the port of Calbayog, Samar, laborer Nazario Dimakiling boarded a banca (small boat) operated by Isidoro Cabonico. While in the banca, Dimakiling discovered a sack containing 28 cans of opium. Cabonico stated that he had been sent by a certain “Chino Aua” to the steamship Ton Yek to fetch a sack of “caramelo” (candy) and that the accused, Lee See (alias Tuya), had given him the sack. Dimakiling seized the opium, turned it over to authorities, and caused the arrest of Lee See and Cabonico. The prosecution later dismissed the complaint against Cabonico, who then testified for the prosecution. He stated that he was hired to go to the steamer to receive the sack from the appellant, which he did. Lee See denied any involvement and claimed he did not know Cabonico.

ISSUE

Whether the trial court erred in convicting the appellant based primarily on the testimony of his alleged accomplice, Isidoro Cabonico, and whether the evidence proved his guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

RULING

No, the trial court did not err. The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction. The Court held that Cabonico’s testimony was reasonable, direct, and positive. Crucially, the Court found that Cabonico was not an accomplice in the crime of violating the Opium Law because he believed the sack contained only “caramelo” (candy) and not opium. His lack of knowledge of the illicit contents meant he did not have the criminal intent required to be an accomplice. Therefore, his testimony did not suffer from the inherent infirmity often attributed to an accomplice’s testimony. The evidence, including Cabonico’s credible account and the discovery of the opium, established Lee See’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. The judgment of the lower court, sentencing him to six months imprisonment, a P1,000 fine, with subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency, and costs, was affirmed.