G.R. No. 1752 - Capule vs. Capistrano

Case Summary (G.R. No. 1752)

Petitioner and Respondent

Petitioner/Prosecution: The provincial fiscal on behalf of the United States (insular government). Respondents/Appellants on appeal: Sionga Yap, Sana Lim, and Dina Lim, convicted below for their roles in the seizure and misappropriation of opium.

Key Dates

Incident: Prior to and on the night of September 11, 1913 (landing and seizure). Trial court judgment: December 8, 1913 (sentences pronounced; dismissals/orders Dec. 3, 1913 noted). Appeal decision: November 19, 1914 (decision reviewed by the appellate court).

Applicable Law and Legal Framework

Legal framework: Case decided under the laws in force in the Philippine Islands at the time (U.S. insular regime), applying the Penal Code provisions cited in the record. Penal Code provisions expressly invoked in the decision include article 502 (definition of robbery), article 503 (penalties and paragraph 5 referenced), article 13 (classification of principals and accomplices), article 57 (accessory penalties), article 61 (accessory penalties for accomplices), and aggravating circumstances under article 10 (paragraph 11 referenced). The decision also refers to administrative obligations concerning seizure and confiscation of prohibited articles (opium) and to precedent cases (e.g., United States v. Atienza) discussed by the dissent.

Factual Narrative

A Moro named Jamilassan landed at Simala with a sack containing 101 tins of opium (valued at P3,333). He sought to sell the opium, initially approaching King Kong Kiang. Instead of buying, the Chinaman King Kong Kiang notified other Chinese residents (Sionga and Sana). Sana lacked funds; Sionga then reported the offer to municipal treasurer Tiburcio Ricablanca. Ricablanca devised a plan to seize the opium for private gain: a Chinaman would feign purchase so that the treasurer and his accomplices could arrest the Moro, seize the drug, substitute molasses for part of its contents, keep a portion, and present some tins to authorities as legally seized. To carry out the plan, Sionga and Dina procured molasses; Ricablanca directed police sergeant Eleno Suizo to accompany two subordinates disguised as civilians. On the night of September 11, 1913, the Moro came ashore with the opium; upon a prearranged signal (lighting matches), the policemen and conspirators arrested the Moro, the sergeant fired his revolver four times and the treasurer fired once, the Moro was eventually captured, and the conspirators took 77 tins, set aside 12, substituted molasses for the contents of 11 tins (one tin lost), and delivered 12 tins of opium plus 11 tins of molasses to authorities as if lawfully seized.

Procedural Posture and Indictment

The provincial fiscal filed a criminal complaint in the Court of First Instance charging the Chinese appellants, the municipal treasurer, certain policemen, and others with willfully, maliciously, and criminally seizing opium of the value of P3,300 belonging to Moro Tahil, with intent to gain, and by use of violence and intimidation against Jamilassan. The trial court convicted several defendants and acquitted others; on appeal the convictions of Sionga Yap, Sana Lim, and Dina Lim were challenged.

Trial Court Judgment and Sentences

The lower court (Hon. Adolph Wislizenus) sentenced Tiburcio Ricablanca, King Kong Kiang (alias Esteban), Sionga Yap, Sana Lim, and Dina Lim each to six years, ten months, and one day of prision mayor, plus one-ninth of costs. Rufino Cortes and Pedro Blando were acquitted; Eleno Suizo and Manuel Balbuena were dismissed as defendants to be used as witnesses or with costs de officio. On appeal the appellate court modified the assessments of participation and sentences for the three appellants now under review.

Issues Presented on Appeal

Primary issues addressed by the appellate court: (1) Whether the taking and appropriation of the opium by public agents assisted by private parties constituted the crime of robbery under article 502 (and related Penal Code provisions) despite the fact that the subject matter was a prohibited article ordinarily subject to seizure and confiscation; (2) The proper classification of each appellant’s criminal participation (principal/coparticipant versus accomplice) and corresponding penalty; (3) Whether the facts better support a charge of estafa or malversation rather than robbery.

Legal Analysis and Holding — Robbery versus Lawful Seizure

The court held that although opium was a prohibited article subject to seizure by public authorities, the character of the taking depends on the actors’ intent and method. Where agents of the authorities, assisted by private parties, seize contraband with the decided intent to appropriate it for private gain and effect the taking by violence or intimidation against the person in possession, their acts cannot be considered lawful seizures. The court reasoned that the seizure became criminal robbery because it was planned and executed with the fixed malicious intent to obtain unlawful gain and was accomplished through violence and intimidation against Jamilassan. The fact that the actors were public agents does not negate criminal intent or change the nature of the offense if they act for private gain rather than in faithful performance of duty.

Characterization of Individual Participation

Sionga Yap: Found to have acted as a coprincipal. He pretended to be a purchaser, arranged the meeting, awaited the Moro on the beach, signaled the Moro’s approach (lighting matches), and thereby directly facilitated the police and conspirators in effecting the seizure by force. His acts were necessary to the conspiracy’s success. Sana Lim and Dina Lim: Classified as accomplices. They cooperated by procuring molasses and by accompanying principals to a distance and joining after the seizure to share in the booty. The record did not show that their acts were indispensable to the robbery’s execution; they did not perform direct acts at the scene necessary to accomplish the seizure.

Distinction from Estafa and Precedent Arguments

Defense counsel argued the conduct should be qualified as estafa (or similar offenses) because officers had authority to seize contraband and, in other cases, unauthorized appropriation after a lawful seizure is treated as estafa or malversation. The court rejected that distinction here because the malicious design to misappropriate existed before and contemporaneously with the seizure: the conspirators planned to effect the seizure as a means to private appropriation, substituted molasses to deceive authorities, kept 77 tins without reporting, and never acted in good faith. The court contrasted cases where wrongful intent arose only after a lawful seizure (which support estafa or malversation), observing that in the present case the intent to steal was integral to the act and the seizure was executed as part of the robber’s design. Consequently, robbery — not estafa or malversation — was the correct classification.

Aggravating Circumstances and Sentencing Rationale

The court found aggravating circumstance No. 15 applicable: the crime was committed at nighttime in an uninhabited place. The court observed no extenuating circumstances. It declined to treat abuse of superior strength as an additional aggravating circumstance because such use of force is inherent in robbery. Based on these findings and the roles of the appellants, the appellate court affirmed conviction as to Sionga Yap as a principal and reduced the assessments for Sana Lim and Dina Lim as accomplices.

Final Disposition and Orders

Appellate disposition: The judgment below was affirmed insofar as consistent with the appellate court’s conclusions and reversed in part as to others. Sionga Yap was sentenced as a principal to six years, ten months, and one day of presidio mayor plus accessory penalties (article 57). Sana Lim and Dina Lim were sentenced as accomplices to six months of arresto mayor

Case Syllabus (G.R. No. 1752)

Procedural History

Appeal from the judgment of December 8, 1913, in the Court of First Instance, sentencing Tiburcio Ricablanca, King Kong Kiang (alias Esteban), Sionga Yap, Sana Lim and Dina Lim.
Defendants Sionga Yap, Sana Lim, and Dina Lim appealed the judgment.
The December 8, 1913 judgment sentenced each of the named persons to six years ten months and one day of prision (presidio) mayor and to pay, each, one-ninth of the costs (as to those initially sentenced in that judgment).
In the same judgment, Rufino Cortes and Pedro Blando were acquitted.
By two orders of the same date (reported as December 3, 1913), upon petition of the provincial fiscal, the case was dismissed with respect to Eleno Suizo (so he could be used as a witness) and Manuel Balbuena, with costs de officio. (Record references: pp. 24 and 25.)
The decision on appeal was rendered in G.R. No. 9604 on November 19, 1914, with the opinion by Justice Torres and concurences and a dissent as recorded.

Facts Established at Trial

Some days prior to September 11, 1913, a Moro named Jamilassan disembarked from a vinta at the beach of barrio Simala, pueblo of Sibonga, Island of Cebu, carrying a sack that contained 101 tins of opium.
The 101 tins of opium belonged to Jamilassan’s employer, the Moro Tahil, and were intended to be sold; the total value stated was P3,333 or P33 per tin.
Jamilassan went to the store of the Chinaman King Kong Kiang (alias Esteban) to sell the opium.
King Kong Kiang did not agree to buy; he went to the Chinaman Sionga, who approached Chinaman Sana to propose purchase.
Sana lacked the money; Sionga then reported the fact to municipal treasurer Tiburcio Ricablanca.
Ricablanca conceived a plan to seize the opium for unlawful gain: one Chinaman would pretend to buy the opium; upon acquisition the treasurer and accomplices would arrest the Moro, seize and appropriate the opium, substitute molasses for part of it, and deliver molasses and part opium and the bearer to the authorities.
To execute the plan, Chinamen Sionga and Dina went to Carcar to buy molasses from Chinaman Yap Chian, and Ricablanca ordered police sergeant Eleno Suizo to take two subordinates, dressed as civilians, to accompany those who would execute the deed.
On the night of September 11, 1913, Jamilassan came ashore carrying the sack of 101 tins; defendants had posted themselves near the landing place.
When Jamilassan approached Sionga (pretending purchaser), Sionga twice lit matches as a prearranged signal; the sergeant and policemen and the defendants then appeared, brandishing weapons, frightened and arrested the Moro and seized the opium.
As the Moro attempted to escape toward the boat, the sergeant fired his revolver four times and the treasurer Ricablanca also fired his revolver; the Moros in the boat fled and one bearing the opium was captured.
The defendants appropriated 77 tins of the opium for themselves, set aside 12 tins, substituted molasses for the contents of 11 tins, and one tin was lost.
The defendants delivered the 12 tins of opium and 11 tins of molasses to the authorities as if legally seized from Jamilassan.

Criminal Complaint and Charges

The provincial fiscal filed a criminal complaint in the Court of First Instance against the Chinese appellants, municipal treasurer, some policemen and others.
The complaint charged that they seized opium valued at P3,300 (the source text uses values P3,333/P3,300 in different passages), property of Moro Tahil, willfully, maliciously and criminally, with intent to gain and by use of violence and intimidation against the person of Jamilassan, who carried the drug.
The prosecution relied on Penal Code provisions defining robbery and related offenses.

Relevant Legal Provisions Referenced

Article 502 of the Penal Code: prescribes that robbery is committed by any person who, with intent to gain, takes any personal property by the use of violence or intimidation against any person or forces upon any thing.
Article 503, paragraph 5 of the Penal Code: referenced in classification of the crime (the decision states robbery is provided for and punished by articles 502 and 503, paragraph 5).
Article 13 of the Penal Code: treats classes of principals (used to determine whether defendants were principals or accomplices).
Article 57 of the Penal Code: accessory penalties referred to in sentencing of the principal.
Article 61 of the Penal Code: accessory penalties referred to in sentencing of accomplices.
Article 10, paragraph 11 of the Penal Code: referenced by the dissent as setting aggravating circumstance when advantage is taken of public position.
Aggravating circumstance No. 15 (as applied by the majority): crime was committed at nighttime and in an uninhabited place (referred to in the decision as an aggravating circumstance).

Issues Presented

Whether the taking and seizure of the opium by public officers and private parties, who acted apparently as agents of the law but allegedly with intent to appropriate the opium for personal gain, constituted the crime of robbery under the Penal Code.
The proper legal classification of the misconduct: robbery vs. estafa (fraud) or malversation of public property.
The degree of criminal responsibility of each appellant (whether coprincipal or accomplice) based on their participation.
Proper punishment and civil consequences for appellants who participated in the seizure and appropriation.

Majority Opinion — Reasoning (Justice Torres)

The seizure of a prohibited article such as opium is generally lawful when carried out by public officers enforcing the law; such seized articles, upon confiscation, become property of the Government.
However, when seizure is effected by a public officer assisted by agents with a decided intent to gain the value of the seized article and not to enforce the law, and when the act is attended by violence and intimidation against the person carrying th