The Court of Appeal held that there was no basis to interfere with the concurrent findings of fact by the trial and first appellate courts, both of which found that the appellant was positively identified as a participant in the robbery and was found in possession of the stolen property shortly after the crime. The court emphasized that on a second appeal, it is limited to matters of law and will not disturb findings of fact unless they are perverse or unsupported by evidence. The evidence of the complainant and other witnesses was found credible and consistent, and the chain of events from the robbery to the arrest was unbroken, negating any possibility of mistaken identity. The doctrine of recent possession was properly applied, as the appellant was apprehended with the stolen items in his possession and failed to provide a satisfactory explanation. The court concluded that the conviction was safe and dismissed the appeal.