Case Digest (G.R. No. 9604)
Facts:
United States v. Sana Lim et al., G.R. No. 9604, November 19, 1914, the Supreme Court En Banc, Torres, J., writing for the Court. The appeal arose from a judgment of the Court of First Instance dated December 8, 1913, rendered by Judge Adolph Wislizenus.The accused-appellants were Chinese residents: Sionga Yap, Sana Lim, and Dina Lim; others involved included the municipal treasurer Tiburcio Ricablanca, the Chinaman King Kong Kiang (alias Esteban), the Moro bearer Jamilassan, and his employer Tahil. The provincial fiscal charged the defendants with forcibly seizing 101 tins of opium (valued at P3,333) from Jamilassan with intent to gain, using violence and intimidation.
Chronology: before September 11, 1913, Jamilassan landed at Simala, Sibonga, Cebu, to sell 101 tins of opium. A scheme was allegedly hatched by treasurer Ricablanca and several Chinese residents: one Chinaman would feign purchase; police (some dressed as civilians) would then swoop in, arrest the Moro, and the conspirators would seize and appropriate the opium. On the night of September 11, 1913, the plan was executed: Sionga signaled the Moro by lighting matches; police and others arrested Jamilassan, fired revolver shots as he tried to escape, and seized the sack. The defendants appropriated 77 tins, set aside 12, substituted molasses for the contents of 11 tins (1 tin lost), and presented 12 tins of opium plus 11 tins of molasses to the authorities as the alleged lawful seizure.
The provincial fiscal filed criminal charges in the Court of First Instance for robbery under the Penal Code (articles cited at trial included Article 502). The CFI, by the December 8, 1913 judgment, sentenced Tiburcio Ricablanca, King Kong Kiang, Sionga Yap, Sana Lim, and Dina Lim to six years ten months and one day of prision mayor and costs; Rufino Cortes and Pedro Blando were acquitted; Eleno Suizo and Manuel Balbuena were dismissed as defendants to be used as witnesses or at public expense. Sionga Yap, Sana Lim, and Dina Lim appealed to the Supreme Court.
The case reached the Supreme Court by appeal from the Court of First Instance. The record shows the facts recited above were found proven at trial; key contested legal questions...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Does the taking and appropriation of opium by public officers and private persons who executed a pretended seizure, with a preconceived intent to obtain unlawful gain and by use of violence and intimidation, constitute the crime of robbery under Article 502 (and Article 503, paragraph 5) of the Penal Code?
- Were appellants Sionga Yap, Sana Lim, and Dina Lim principals or accomplices under Article 13 of the Penal Code for purposes of punishment?
- Alternatively, should the accused have been convicted for estafa or malversation rather than robbery whe...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)