The judgment of the Court of First Instance from which the accused herein has appealed holds him  guilty of the crime of robbery, defined and punished by article 508 of the Penal Code, and  sentences him to the penalty of ten years and one day of presidio mayor, to pay an indemnity of P1,158.60 and costs.

On the night of the 11th of May, 1904, a robbery was committed in the provincial treasury of Abra; the thieves broke open the windows and carried off  two boxes which contained the sum of P3,036, out of which P1,877.40 were subsequently recovered.  The accused was a Constabulary soldier and on that night formed part of the guard of the provincial jail, and toward 12 o'clock of the night in question, he was on duty as sentry at the jail gate when several prisoners, accompanied by the corporal of the guard, went out.  The robbery was discovered on the following day, and from the investigations made it appeared that the robbery was perpetrated by the aforesaid prisoners, or that at least they had taken a direct part in its commission; it also  appeared that, owing to the information given by the accused, the place where a portion of the stolen money had been buried was discovered  and about P500  were thus found there.  Pending the investigation regarding the robbery in question, it seems that the accused, who was under detention at the offices of the Constabulary, made his escape.  This, and this alone is all that appears as proven in the case, and as it may easily be seen, there is nothing in it tending to show that the defendant took a direct part in the commission of the said robbery:  After considering the evidence the judge below states in his judgment that:

"The accused may not have taken a direct part in  the commission of the robbery, but he assisted in such a manner that without his cooperation nothing could  have been accomplished; he was  on guard at the jail, and if he had not permitted the prisoners to go out at a late hour at night, they would have been unable to commit the robbery in conjunction with the Constabulary soldiers who accompanied them; he afterwards knew who had perpetrated the robbery and the place where the stolen money had been  hidden, and later he made his escape and deserted from the Constabulary; these facts place him in a position to be considered as the author of the robbery in question, which is defined and punished by article 508 of the Penal Code, aside from the  fact that his  liability also appears in case No. 76, from Abra, against Eulalio Molina et al., for this same crime."

Among the elements upon which conviction in this case is based, those involved in the evidence which, according to the opinion of the judge  below, appear against the defendant in case No. 76  prosecuted against other persons,  must at once be discarded, as such  proofs can in no manner prejudice him, for the simple reason that they were adduced  in his absence.  One of the essential rights of every person charged in a criminal case is that of being present at the trial, hearing the testimony of the witnesses for the prosecution,  and cross-examining them (sec. 15, par. 5, General Orders,  No. 58), and this right would evidently be violated if the evidence taken in another case, to which he was not a party and  in which he has not been heard, were to be considered to his detriment in this case.

The fact that the accused permitted the prisoners, who afterwards committed the robbery, to go out of the jail, would unquestionably involve criminal liability if it had been  done with a knowledge, on the part of the said accused, of their intention to commit  the robbery.  There is no evidence that he had any such knowledge; on the contrary, the accused declares positively, and  has not been contradicted, that he was ignorant of the intentions of the prisoners when they left the jail that night.  And he further explains the fact in question, stating that he permitted the  prisoners to go out because they were accompanied by  the  corporal  commanding the guard who afterwards informed  him that the prisoners had gone out for the purpose  of getting  fire-wood for making coffee. Whether such permission, given under these circumstances, was lawful or  not, is not a question that we are called upon to decide in this case; the fact is, as it appears from  the  evidence, that it was given in good faith and without malice, inasmuch as the accused was unaware of their plan to commit the robbery.  The  cooperation  that the law punishes is the  assistance knowingly or intentionally rendered, which  can not exist without previous cognizance of the criminal act intended to be executed.

The fact that the accused knew the place where the stolen money had been hidden is also explained by him by his statement that, as he knew that the prisoners who committed the robbery had brothers and queridas, he informed his captain and  lieutenant of the fact with the suggestion that inquiries be made of them, and they in effect pointed out the place where the money was  buried. The record contains nothing in contradiction of this statement  by the accused; rather on the contrary, the same is confirmed by Harry A. Duryea, at the time a commissary lieutenant  of the Constabulary in Bangued, Abra, and a witness for the prosecution, who testified that,  owing.to the information given by the accused, about P500 of the stolen money were recovered.  Notwithstanding the fact that this witness does not appear to have been very explicit when describing the manner in which the defendant gave  the information, it  may however, be deduced from his testimony that it was with the intent and purpose to contribute toward the success of the investigation  that was being made by the Constabulary officers, inasmuch as he expressly qualifies the act as assistance rendered therein by the accused, to such an extent that, on account of said assistance, as the said witness testified, the defendant was not imprisoned at the time but simply placed under guard at the offices of the Constabulary,  notwithstanding  the suspicions of complicity in  the  robbery  at first entertained against him.  This fact induces us  to believe that the information or the knowledge of the place where the money had  been buried, was actually obtained by  the accused in the form and manner stated in his testimony.  At any rate there is no proof to the contrary, and much less as to the allegation that the accused took any part in the burying of the money.  Therefore, there is no foundation for any charge against him  in connection with the matter.

As to his escape, the defendant declares that he made it for the purpose of taking his wife to San Juan,  "because, as he said, there were fears that  we, the  members of the jail guard, were to be exiled."  Not taking into account the value that such an explanation may have, the defendant's escape, which as a matter of fact took place long after the robbery had occurred, does not constitute conclusive evidence of his culpability, and hence it can not serve as a basis for his conviction.

The judgment appealed from  is hereby reversed, and it is ordered that the defendant be immediately  released, with the costs of both instances de oficio.  So ordered.

Arellano, C. J., Torres,  Carson, Willard, and Tracey, JJ., concur.