G.R. No. L-9147; March 10, 1914
THE UNITED STATES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. PERFECTO LAMADRID, ET AL., defendants. JUAN YEBRA, appellant.

FACTS:
On or about the night of January 16, 1913, in the barrio of Gumaus, Paracale, Ambos Camarines, the accused, including appellant Juan Yebra, were charged with robbery. It was alleged that they forcibly broke a small window of a dredging machine owned by the Gumaus Placer Company and stole five gantas of gold-bearing sand valued at P800. The company’s superintendent, William Kane, discovered the theft and found signs of forced entry into the dredge’s depository.
Witnesses Sotero Galero and Mariano Banal saw Yebra and his co-accused Perfecto Lamadrid near the dredge on the evening of the crime. Yebra was lying face down while Lamadrid carried a sack. The two proceeded to a small house, where they discussed the sack of sand. Yebra left wearing only a wet taparrabo (loincloth) and left behind a wet hat, which was later found to contain auriferous sand. This sand was turned over to authorities.
Additionally, silversmith Marcelo Venida testified that Yebra had given him gold nuggets to make jewelry. While in jail, Yebra and Lamadrid offered the chief of police jewelry, money, and a carabao in exchange for their release, leading to the recovery of the stolen gold items. The prosecution also presented written confessions from Yebra, but these were deemed inadmissible by the court because they were obtained through promises of leniency by a police officer.

ISSUE:
Whether the conviction of Juan Yebra for the crime of robbery is supported by sufficient evidence, notwithstanding the inadmissibility of his extrajudicial confessions.

RULING:
Yes, the conviction is affirmed. The Supreme Court held that although Yebra’s extrajudicial confessions were improperly obtained and thus inadmissible, there was ample independent evidence to establish his guilt beyond reasonable doubt. This evidence included:
1. Testimonies of eyewitnesses who placed Yebra at the crime scene and linked him to the stolen sand.
2. The discovery of gold-bearing sand on Yebra’s wet hat, which matched the sand stolen from the dredge.
3. The testimony of the silversmith confirming that Yebra provided gold nuggets for jewelry after the robbery.
4. The attempt by Yebra and Lamadrid to bribe the chief of police with jewelry and other items, which were later identified as proceeds of the robbery.
The court found this collective evidence sufficient to sustain the conviction. The penalty imposed by the Court of First Instancethree years, six months, and twenty-one days of presidio correccional, indemnification of P320 to the Gumaus Placer Company, with subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency, and proportional costswas affirmed.