These defendants were charged with the crime of robbery. The complaint alleged: "That on or about the 25th of February of the present year, 1914,  within  the district of this municipality of Iloilo, Province of Iloilo, Philippine Islands, the said accused, being municipal  policemen of  Iloilo and availing themselves of their character of public officers, did willfully, unlawfully, and criminally, with known premeditation and intent to derive unlawful gain, seize the sum of P200, the property of the Chinamen Haw You and Yap Tiao, through intimidation against  persons, employing fraud and craft in the commission of the crime; with violation of law." (Page 1 of the record.)

Upon said  complaint the defendants were duly arrested, arraigned, tried, found guilty,  and sentenced to  be  imprisoned for  a period of seven years of prision mayor and to indemnify the offended persons in the sum  of P200 and to pay the costs.  From that sentence the defendants appealed to this court.

The only question  presented  by the  appellants here is one  of  fact.  They allege  that  the proof adduced during the trial of the cause was  not sufficient to show that they are guilty of  the crime charged in the complaint.

Judge J. S. Powell, who tried the defendants,  who  saw and heard the witnesses, in his decision said: "I have listened to the facts in this case twice, spending a whole  day each time, and  I  am convinced that  there is not the slightest doubt about the guilt of these defendants as charged."

After a careful examination of the evidence, we find that the following facts are proved beyond a reasonable doubt:

1. 
   
2. That one Kong Tang is a Chinaman and the  owner of a store or tienda in the barrio of  Lapus-Lapus in the municipality of Iloilo; that said tienda is located just across the river from the  city of Iloilo.
   
   
3. That oh  the night of the  25th of February, 1914, there were two other Chinamen in his store or tienda by the name of Haw You  and Yap Tiao.
   
   
4. That on said night of the 25th of February,  1914, the three defendants entered the house, tienda or store of Kong Tang, pretending to be policemen or officers of the law,  and said that  they desired to  search the house of Kong Tang for opium.
   
   
5. That the said defendants pretended to make a search of the house  and pretended that they had found a bottle, after said search, and pretended to the Chinamen that the bottle contained opium.
   
   
6. Upon finding the said bottle they notified  the  three persons in the house or tienda that  they  would have to accompany them;  in  other words,  the defendants  represented to  the said Chinamen that they were placed under arrest.
   
   
7. Later the defendants represented to the Chinamen if they would pay them P300,  they would not  arrest them. The Chinamen did not have  the money.  After  some discussion and further threats on the part of the defendants, the Chinamen promised  to pay to them, in order to be relieved from arrest, the sum of P200.
   
   
8. The Chinamen did not have that  amount of money in their possession.   Kong Tang, in order to secure the money, sent his  servant  to the  house of Kio Kiu to obtain the money. Kio  Kiu  refused to deliver the money to the servant.  Later Kong Tang  went personally to the house of Kio Kiu, and after explaining to him why he needed the said P200, Kio Kiu  gave him  said amount.  Kong  Tang then returned to his house or tienda and delivered the same to the defendants, whereupon the defendants left the tienda or store of Kong Tang and the incident was closed.  Later the complaint above was presented against them.  Judge Powell found that the defendants were guilty of  the crime of robbery.  From that  decision the  defendants appealed to this court.
   

We think the rule is well established in this jurisdiction that one who obtains money by pretending to be an officer of the law by threats  of arrest and imprisonment is guilty of the crime of robbery by force and intimidation.  (U. S. vs..  Smith, 3 Phil. Rep., 20.)

A policeman who knowing that a person has committed no crime for which he could be lawfully arrested  and tried, nevertheless arrest such person, falsely accusing him of a crime, and then by means of threats of presentation and imprisonment, thus playing upon his  ignorance  and fear, obtains money from said person, secures such money by force and intimidation and commits the crime of robbery as defined in the Penal Code.   (U. S. vs.. Fulgencio, 2 Phil. Rep., 452; U.  S. vs.. Flores, 19 Phil. Rep., 178; U. S. vs.. Martin, 23 Phil. Rep., 58; 3 Viada, 341; decision of supreme court of Spain of June 24, 1875.)

After a careful examination of the record brought to this court we find no reason for changing  or modifying the sentence of the lower court, except that the imprisonment should be presidio mayor instead of prision mayor.  With this modification, the sentence of the lower court is hereby affirmed with costs.  So ordered.

Arellano, C. J., Torres,  Carson, Trent,  and Araullo, JJ., concur.