U.S. vs. Sana Lim 28 Phil. 404 November 19, 1914

U.S. vs. Sana Lim

28 Phil. 404

November 19, 1914

FACTS: Sana Lim together with Sionga Yap, Dina Lim, Jing Kong Kiang a.ka.a Esteban and Tiburcio Ricablanca were charged of the crime of robbery after they seized 101 tins of opium from a Moro named Jamilassan and appropriated to themselves 77 tins out of the 101 tins.

According to the facts of the case, the idea to seize the opium was conceived by Ricablanca on September 11, 1913 when Sionga reported to him that opium was being offered for sale. Ricablanca  with intent to obtain in lawful gain, arranged that one of the Chinaman should pretended that he would buy the opium and together rwith his accomplices, they would arrest the Moro and seize the opium. In order for them to appropriate it to themselves they would substitute part of it with molasses and deliver it to the authorities together with the bearer of the drug.

To carry out the conceived plan, the Chinamen Sionga and Dina bought molasses while Ricablanca gave order to the police sergeant Eleno Suizo to take two subordinates, who will dress as civilians and would accompany Sionga, who would pretend to be the purchaser.

On the night of September 11, 1913, the group went to carry out the plan. When the Moro Jamilassan with his companions and his employer Tahil with the 101 tins of opium came to the shore of the barrio of Simala, Sionga, as agreed by his companions lit some matches twice as a signal and then the defendants appeared upon the scene led by the sergeant and his policemen. They arrested Jamilassan while the other Moro successfully escaped. The defendants then went to appropriate to themselves 77 tins of opium, set aside 12 of them and replaced the contents of the 11 tins with molasses while 1 tin was lost. The 12 tins of opium and 11 tins of molasses were then delivered by the defendants to the authorities as having been legally seized in the possession of Jamilassan.

The defendants were then charged given penalty of six years ten months and one day of prision mayor and to pay, each of them, one ninth of the costs.

ISSUES: a. Whether or not Sana Lim and Dina Lim be punished as principals in the crime of robbery.

      b. Whether or not the crime should be estafa and not robbery.

RULING: a. No. The Court finds Sana Lim and Dina Lim as mere accomplices to the commission of the crime. Although they cooperated by acts prior and simultaneous with the perpetration of the crime, the records did not clearly show that they performed acts that were necessary and indispensable for the consummation of the crime. The two, with knowledge of the commission of robbery and with the intent to obtain unlawful gain, they accompanied the principals in the crime up to a certain distance from, though not near, the place where the robbery took place. Moreover, the two did not approach the place until after the robbery took place and when then for the purpose of sharing or the division of the opium stolen. Thus, the acts of the two defendants did not fall within any of the classes specified in Art. 13 of the Penal Code, which treats of the principals, the two then, are to be considered as mere accomplices of the principals in the robbery.

b. No. The Court is not persuaded with the contention of the defense that the guilty persons first acted in good faith in the discharge of their duties and without any lawful intention, and the intent to commit illicit gain was formed only after they had legally seized the property, and thus the crimes should be estafa and not robbery. According to the Court, both Ricablanca and the Chinese appellants already had the intention to appropriate to themselves the greater part of the drug from the moment they proposed to seize the opium carried for sale by the Moro Jamilassan. In fact, they even planned to deceive the authorities by substituting the contents of 11 of the 23 tins of opium with molasses of which they presented to the authorities as legally seized from Jamilassan. They also kept 77 of the tins seized and did not report it to their superior, nor does the records show that the said tins were afterwards recovered from the defendants. Hence, the crime in question is classified as robbery and not estafa.