Unipeg

The defendants were convicted of robbery in the first degree. They made a motion for a new trial. The motion was denied and they appealed from the judgment and from the order denying them a new trial.

They claim the evidence was insufficient, and, as we understand them, they admit nearly all of the story told by Leon Miguel, the complaining witness, except that they deny that they used any force or put him to fear. As to those elements the complaining witness testified fully and the defendants took the stand and contradicted him. There was thus created a conflict in the evidence, but the power to determine the conflict rested with trier of the facts and not with a court of review.

On January 26, 1931, Leon Miguel, a Filipino, was walking on Market Street in San Francisco. When near Fourth Street one of the defendants, Unipeg, also a Filipino, approached him and asked for directions to go to the Presidio. Miguel answered and then Unipeg stated he had an automobile and asked Miguel to accompany him. When they approached the automobile there were two other Filipinos in it. Miguel took a seat in front by the side of Manicap, the driver. Unipeg took a seat by the side of Aradoza…