G.R. No. L-45179 March 30, 1937THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES,plaintiff-appellee,vs.BENJAMIN IRANG, ET AL.,defendants.BENJAMIN IRANG,appellant.Conrado V. Sanchez for appellant.Undersecretary of Justice Melencio for appellee.VILLA-REAL,J.:The accused Benjamin Irang appeals to this court from the judgment of the Court of First Instance of Nueva Ecija finding him guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the complex crime robbery with homicide, the robbery having been committed in the house of Perfecto Melocotones and Maximiniana Melocotones, and sentencing him to the penalty ofreclusion perpetuaand to indemnify the heirs of the deceased in the sum of P500, with the proportionate part of the costs of the trial.In support of his appeal the appellant assigns the following alleged errors as having been committed by the courta quoin its decision in question, to wit:1. The lower court erred in holding that the defendant Benjamin Irang had been sufficiently identified beyond reasonable doubt, and in not giving due weight to the testimony of the witnesses for the defense.2. The lower court erred in not acquitting the defendant Benjamin Irang on the ground of reasonable doubt.The following undisputed facts have been established during the trial, to wit:Between 7 and 8 o'clock of the night of November 9, 1935, seven individuals with white stripes upon their faces, two of whom were armed with guns and two with bolos, went to the house of the spouses Perfecto Melocotones and Maximiniana Vicente, where three lights were burning, one at the balcony, another in the room and another on a table. Some of said individuals went up and others remained on guard downstairs. Those who went up approached Perfecto Melocotones immediately and ordered him to bring his money. Melocotones answered in the affirmative but before he could do what was ordered him he was attacked with bolos until he fell to the floor. Later another armed with a gun went up and approaching Maximiana Vicente, wife of Perfecto Melocotones, struck herein the face with the butt of his gun, making her lose consciousness momentarily. When she regained consciousness he saw her husband already dead. One of the assailants then said to her: "Bring out the money and jewelry." Maximiniana Vicente turned over to the man who had struck her with the butt of his gun P70 in cash and jewelry valued at P200, which she has kept in a trunk. During the short space of time that she was turning over the money and jewelry, she looked at the man's face and saw that he had pockmarks and a scar on his left eyelid. That same night the house of Juana de la Cruz was assaulted by malefactors who had been firing shots before arriving at and going up the house. All of them had white stripe upon their faces. Juana de la Cruz noticed that one of them had pockmarks and a scar on the left eyelid and was dressed in amaong-colored suit. It was he who opened her trunk.After the malefactors had left Perfecto Melocotones house, the latter's son Toribio Melocotones, who had seen the assailants arrive but without recognizing them, immediately reported the matter to the municipal authorities and to the constabulary, who went to the scene of the crime without loss of time. Maximiniana Vicente informed Lieutenant Roman Alejandre of the Constabulary that the person who had struck her with the butt of his gun and taken her money and jewelry was a man of regular statute, with a lean body and pockmarked face. With this description, said lieutenant went in search of said individual. Having arrested a group of persons, he brought them to Maximiniana Vicente's house so that the latter might identify among them the one who struck her with the butt of his gun, but she did not find such man. Later another group was presented to her and in it she identified the herein accused-appellant Benjamin Irang as the one who had struck her with the butt of his gun and demanded delivery of her money and jewelry. He was likewise the same man arrested by Lieutenant Alejandre at midnight on November 9, 1935, in the barrio of Tampac which is five or seven kilometers from Maturanoc to which he was taken and brought to the house of the deceased. Juana de la Cruz also recognized Benjamin Irang, through his pockmarks and scar on his left eyelid, as one of the men who had gone up to her house that same night. Once under arrest, the accused-appellant Benjamin Irang made an affidavit in Tagalog (Exhibit B), stating that while he was in the barrio of Tampac, municipality of Guimba. Province of Nueva Ecija, on November 9, 1935 at about 7 o'clock in the evening, Fidel Estrella and Ignacio Sebastian arrived; that Fidel Estrella invited him to go to the house of Ignacio Sebastian's brother-in-law named Angel Talens because Estrella had something to tell him; that upon arriving at Angel Talens' house, Fidel Estrella invited him to go to Maturanoc to look for business; that the appellant asked Fidel Estrella why he wanted to bring him in the latter told him to stop asking questions otherwise he would slash him with his bolo; that Fidel Estrella carried a bolo and Ignacio Sebastian an unlicensed firearms; that they went to the house of Perfecto Melocotones in the barrio of Maturanoc, Guimba, Nueva Ecija, and upon arriving there Fidel Estrella, who acted as the ringleader, assigned to each and every one of them his corresponding place, designating those who should assault that of Ursula Cabigon; that Benjamin Irang was in the group formed by Fidel Estrella and Ignacio Sebastian, which assaulted the house of Perfecto Melocotones, having been assigned to stand guard on the stairs of said house; that Fidel Estrella, once inside the house, slashed Perfecto Melocotones thrice with his bolo; that Fidel Estrella later told him that they had succeeded in taking money and the shotgun; and that after the assault they dispersed, each returning to his own home. This affidavit (Exhibit B) was sworn to by Benjamin Irang before the deputy clerk of the Court of First Instance of Nueva Ecija , in the presence of Graciano Pigol, the constabulary soldier who accompanied him. Before Irang affixed his thumbmark and took his oath, the deputy clerk of court asked him if he understood Tagalog and when he answered in the affirmative said deputy clerk read the contends of the document to him. Asked whether he had any thing else to add thereto, the appellant answered that he had nothing more to say.The defense of the accused-appellant is an alibi to the effect that in the afternoon of the day of the commission of the crime, he was in his rice field washing a fishing basket. There he met Roberto Alcantara. Later he went to the house of Buenaventura Javier to return the fishing basket in question and to exercise on the rings (jugar a las arogallas) with the latter's son Pedro, and two unmarried sons of the appellant's uncle, in the presence of several persons, returning home at 8 o'clock that night. When he was arrested the constabulary soldiers opened his box but found nothing in it. They later took him in a jitney to the victims house in the barrio of Maturanoc and upon being brought face to face with the widow Maximiniana Vicente, Lieutenant Alejandre told the widow: "this is the one who slashed your husband and punctured your face." The widow answered saying: "Is it that man, sir." As Benjamin Irang answered that he had not left his house, the lieutenant gave him a blow which made him lose consciousness. Then the lieutenant said to the widow: "He is the same man. It was he to whom you delivered the money and jewelry. Look at him well. Identify him well." In the constabulary barracks in Cabanatuan the soldiers and a sergeant manhandled him from the night of November 9, 1935, until 4 o'clock in the morning of the 11th of said month and year, for having denied all knowledge of the crime, making him lose his breath and punching him in the stomach. When he could no longer bear the maltreatment, he agreed to tell what they wanted him to tell. Upon being taken for investigation, the constabulary soldiers told him to agree to all that the clerk of court might read to him, otherwise they would again manhandle him at the barracks. He was not present when the affidavit Exhibit B was prepared. Neither are the contents thereof true. He merely affixed his thumbmark upon said document for fear of the soldiers.Lieutenant Alejandre as well as Sergeant Lubrico denied that the accused had been maltreated in the least.The only question to be decided in the present appeal is whether or not the accused-appellant Benjamin Irang was identified as one of those who assaulted the house of Perfecto Melocotones, killed him and robbed his wife Maximiniana Vicente of money and jewelry.Maximiniana Vicente, whom the accused-appellant Benjamin Irang struck in the face with the butt of his gun and of whom he demanded delivery of her money and jewelry scrutinized the latter's face and notice that he had pockmarks and a scar on his left eyelid. When on that same night of the assault Lieutenant Alejandre, guided by the description given him by Maximiniana Vicente, went in search of the person who might have maltreated the latter and robbed her of her money and jewelry and presented a group of persons to said Maximiniana Vicente, she said that the man who had maltreated her was not among those who composed that first group. Said lieutenant later presented another group to her but neither did the widow find in it the man who had struck her with the butt of his gun. In the third group presented to her, she immediately pointed at one who turned out to be the herein accused-appellant. The man pointed at protested but when she told him that it was he who had struck her in the face with the butt of his gun, the appellant became silent.The testimony of Juana de la Cruz to the effect that her house, situated only about one hundred meters from that of Perfecto Melocotones, was assaulted that same night by some malefactors with white stripes upon their faces, and that one of them, with pockmarks on his face and a scar on his left eyelid and dressed in amaong-colored suit, who later turned out to be the herein accused-appellant, opened her box, indirectly corroborates Maximiniana Vicente's testimony that the man of the same description was the open who went to her house and demanded delivery of her money and jewelry, having recognized him later to be the herein accused-appellant. While evidence of another crime is, as a rule, not admissible in a prosecution for robbery, it is admissible when it is otherwise relevant, as where it tends to identify defendant as the perpetrator of the robbery charged, or tends to show his presence at the scene or in the vicinity of the crime at the time charged, or when it is evidence of a circumstance connected with the crime (16, C. J., 610, 611, sec. 1196).Maximiniana Vicente's identification of the herein accused-appellant is likewise corroborated by the latter's own admission invited to assault the house of Perfecto Melocotones which they in fact the lower court of the appellant's admission under oath upon the assumption that it was not made voluntarily, is erroneous, inasmuch as the only evidence that it was not voluntarily is the accused-appellant's own testimony that he had been manhandled by the constabulary soldiers and threatened with further maltreatment if he did not testify as they wished. This imputation of fortune was categorically denied by Lieutenant Alejandre and Sergeant Lubrico of the Constabulary, before whom the accused-appellant made the admission and who caused it to be put in writing. The imputation is likewise contradicted by the deputy clerk of the Court of First Instance of Nueva Ecija before whom the accused-appellant swore to his admission and who testified that before he administered oath to said accused-appellant, he asked him whether he understood Tagalog and, having been answered in the affirmative, he read said document to him and asked him whether he had anything to add, the appellant affixing his thumbmark upon it after answering that he had nothing more to say (U. S.vs.Zara, 42 Phil., 308). There is no doubt that an admission made under oath under such circumstances cannot be considered involuntary and therefore is admissible against the person making it.This court is of the opinion, therefore, that the accused-appellant identity as one of those who assaulted the house of Perfecto Melocotones and robbed Maximiniana Vicente of her money and jewelry, is established conclusively beyond reasonable doubt.The defense of the accused is an alibi and has for its purpose to show that he could both have been at the scene of the crime between 7 and 8 o'clock at night because he was in another place about seven kilometers away at that time. This defense of alibi is contradicted by the above-stated testimony of Juana de la Cruz and by the accused-appellant's own admission under oath Exhibit B.The facts established at the trial as committed by the accused-appellant beyond reasonable doubt constitute the complex crime of robbery with homicide defined in article 293, in connection with article 294, paragraph 1, of the Revised Penal Code, and punished byreclusion perpetuato death. Taking into consideration all the circumstances of the case, the penalty ofreclusion perpetuaimposed by the trial judge is in accordance with the evidence and with law. It is not so, however, with the pecuniary liability because, taking into account the gravity of the offense, the indemnity to the heirs of the deceased should be P1,000 and that for the stolen goods not restored P390.Wherefore, with the sole modification that the accused-appellant Benjamin Irang is sentenced further to indemnify the heirs of the deceased in the sum of P1,000 and to restore to Maximiniana Vicente the sum of P70 and the stolen jewelry and gun, or to reimburse the value thereof in the amount of P390, the judgment appealed from is affirmed in all other respects, with the costs of this instance to the appellant. So ordered.Avancea, C.J., Abad Santos, Imperial and Diaz, JJ., concur.

Separate OpinionsLAUREL,J.,dissenting:I dissent.The evidence presented by the prosecution consists in the main of (a) Exhibit B, which is alleged confession of the appellant herein, (b) the testimony of Toribio Melocotones, son of the deceased, (c) the testimony of Juana de la Cruz, (d) that the Lieut. Roman Alejandre of the Philippine Army, and (e) that of Maximiniana Vicente, widow of the deceased.In his affidavit, marked Exhibit B, the appellant admitted his participation in the commission of the crime charged. This written confession was not given any value by the trial judge. According to the appellant, it was obtained from him by an unknown soldier, through force and violence, under circumstances which makes it involuntary and, therefore, inadmissible as proof of guilt (U. S.vs.Zara, 42 Phil., 308; Peoplevs.Buda Singh, 45 Phil., 676; Peoplevs.Takeo Tabuche, 46 Phil., 28; Peoplevs.Guendo Nishishima, 57 Phil., 26; Peoplevs.Francisco, 57 Phil., 418).Toribio Melocotones testified that he saw the band of seven robbers on their way to his father's house; that at that time he did not know who they were but the he now knows five of them to be the accused Fidel Estrella, Jacinto Sebastian, Ignacio Sebastian, Juan Levaste (aliasJuan de Caste), and the appellant herein, Benjamin Irang; that he saw the seven men enter the yard of his father's house, where he had planted himself; that the seven men entered the house, one at a time, the smallest in the group, Fidel Estrella, first followed by a bigger man, the appellant Benjamin Irang, then by Juan Levaste (aliasJuan de Caste), by Jacinto Sebastian, by Ignacio Sebastian, and finally, by the two members of the band who were unknown to him that as soon as they all had entered he followed them but saw one of them standing guard and firing several shots, as a result of which he heard his brothers and sisters shouting; that it was on that occasion when he came nearer the house but was seen by the guard who pointed a gun at him and ran away. The trial judge brushed aside the testimony of this witness as unworthy of credence and belief. He said:. . . En primer lugar, cada uno de estos acusados fueron sucesivamente llevos a su casa y presentados alli para ser reconocidos en dias y noches sucesivos. Sin embargo, dicho testigo no indico a ninguno de ellos que fuera el que en la noche de autos asalto a su casa. Este testigo., no obstante, no fue llamado como tal en la investigacion prelominarde esta causa en el Juzgado de Paz para indicar, de conformidad con los detalles que he dado, que los acusados eran asaltaron su acsa. Es verdad que esta falta de explicacion no es suficienta para desacreditar su testimonio. Este acusado es uno de los probatorio de su testimonio. Este acusado es uno de los mas altos se entre to dos los acusados, por consiguente, no puede decirse que era el mas pequeno. Aun admitiendo que el testimonio del testigo al hablar de que el primero que entro era el mas pequeno se referia si volumen del individio. Fidel Estrella tampoco puede considerarse como el mas flaco de entre los acusados. Es de cuerpo regular y se confunde casi como cualquiera de los otros acusados en su volumen, a excepcion del acusado Emilio de Guzman, que es el mas grueso de entre los mismos.Su testimonio, pues en opinion del Juzgado, no puede servir ni siquiera como un indicio de que los acusados eran los ladrones que ni siquiera como un indicio de que los acusados eran los ladrones que asaltaron su casa en la noche de autos. (underlining is mine.)Juana de la Cruz testified that her house had also been assaulted bytulisaneson the same night and that she had recognized the appellant as one of them. The testimony of this witness refers to an event wholly distinct and separate from the criminal act imputed to the appellant in the case at bar, during the commission of which she stated she was at her house about five meters away.The testimony of Lieut. Alejandre refers to the investigation conducted by him and to posterior occurrences, of scarcely any importance in proving the identity and guilt of the appellant. Lieut. Alejandre arrested the appellant on the strength of the description furnished him by the widow of the deceased. How good the description is may be judged from the fact that prior to the appellant's arrest, Lieut. Alejandre had arrested three other persons, later to release them as "wrong parties!".The only remaining basis for the conviction of the appellant by the lower court is the testimony of the widow, Maximiniana Vicente. In the opinion of the trial court, this witness has sufficiently identified the appellant herein. Lieut. Alejandre testified that when this witness, Maximiniana Vicente, confronted the defendant she recognized him as one of the assaillants. This the appellant denied, stating that the widow identified him "in obedience to Lieut. Alejandre's order." On cross-examination, the witness stated that she was able to identify the appellant "porque el Teniente Alejandre le habia indicado que era uno de los que tomaron parte en el asalto de su casa." When called again to the witness stand she retracted this statement. I am reluctant to join trial judge in attributing this contradiction on her part merely to her ignorance.Two important detail in this case deserve more than passing mention. It appears that soon after the band of robbers had deported, Lieut. Alejandre arrived at the scene of the crime and conducted an investigation. The widow, on that occasion referred to the appellant as a man with pockmarks. About one month later, she testified that she recognized him besides by a scar on his left eyelid. A scar identifies a man more effectively than mere pockmarks, these common. But I do not know why it took the witness one month to discover this important descriptive detail. The widow also testified that she recognized the appellant, Irang, because of the light because it was he who hit her with the butt of his gun and because it was to him that she delivered money and jewelry. It should be observed, however, that the assaillants were disguised when they committed the crime. This makes identification difficult, if not impossible, and probably accounts for the fact that the widow made no reference to the appellant's scar in the beginning.It is true that the finding of fact made by trial judge are entitled to great weight and credit and should not be overturned unless grave considerations warrant the taking of such a course. But I am not convinced that appellant has been satisfactorily identified in the case at bar (U. S.vs.Asio, 1 Phil., 304).The defense interposed by the appellant is an alibi. While alibis are easily concocted and ,for this reason, are received by court with great caution, I express the opinion that conviction should be predicated on the sufficiency of the evidence for the prosecution and not on the weakness of the evidence for the defense. I am, therefore, of the opinion that the appellant is entitled, like his six co-accused in the court below, to an acquittal.Concepcion, J., concurs.

G.R. No. 28871 September 19, 1928THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS,plaintiff-appellee,vs.CLEMENTE BABIERA, JUSTO BABIERA and DOMINGA BORES,defendants-appellants.Zulueta and Cordova and Jesus Trinidad for appellants.Office of the Solicitor-General Reyes for appellee.VILLA-REAL,J.:This is an appeal taken by Clemente Babiera, Justo Babiera and Dominga Bores from the judgment of the Court of First Instance of Iloilo finding them guilty of the crime of murder, the first as principal, and the last two as accomplices, sentencing the former to life imprisonment with the accessories of article 54 of the Penal Code, and each of the latter to fourteen years, eight months and one daycadena temporal, with the accessories of article 54 and 59 of the Penal Code, respectively, and all three to indemnify the family of the deceased Severino Haro in the sum of P1,000 jointly and severally, and each of them to pay one-third of the costs of the action in the justice of the peace court and the Court of First Instance.The six alleged errors assigned by the accused as committed by the trial court in its judgment may be shifted down to the following propositions:1. That the evidence adduced at the trial by the prosecution has not established the guilt of the defendants-appellants beyond a reasonable doubt.2. The Exhibit I of the prosecution is not anante-mortemdeclaration and is therefore inadmissible as evidence.3. That the offended party's quarrelsome disposition can be proved in the trial to determine who began the attack.Before discussing the evidence adduced by both parties and determining its weight and probatory value, it is well to decide the questions raised by the appellants on the admissibility of evidence.The first question of this nature refers to the character of the document Exhibit I, which is a statement made by Severino Haro in Saint Paul's Hospital of Iloilo on the morning after the crime was committed.Although said statement in itself is inadmissible as anante-mortemdeclaration, inasmuch as there is nothing to show that at the time he made it Severino Haro knew or firmly believed that he was at the point of death, nevertheless, having ratified its contents a week later when he was near death as a result of his wounds, said declaration is admissible as a part of that which he madeante-mortem"A statement made under circumstances which would not render it admissible as a dying declaration becomes admissible as such, it is held, if approved or repeated by the declarant after he had abandoned all hope of recovery." (30 Corpus Juris, 257.)Passing now to a consideration of the evidence, the prosecution tried to proved the following facts:Justo Babiera was the owner of two parcels of land situated in the municipality of Oton, Province of Iloilo, Philippine Islands. On October 19, 1922 Justo Babiera executed a contract of sale with the right of repurchase in favor of Basilio Copreros whereby he sold the two parcels of land to the latter for the sum of P124 with the condition that if the vendor did not repurchase them on or before August 1, 1923, the sale would become absolute and irrevocable (Exhibit F). The period for repurchase having expired, Basilio Copreros took possession of said two parcels of land, and on March 24, 1927, made application to the registrar of deeds for the Province of Iloilo for the registration of the consolidation of his title to said parcels. On the 26th of the said month, Basilio Copreros leased said parcels to Severino Haro, municipal president of Oton (Exhibit G and G-1). In view of this, on March 31, 1927, Justo Babiera filed a complaint against Basilio Copreros in the justice of the peace court of Oton for the recovery of the possession of said two parcels of land. The complaint having been dismissed on April 19, 1927 on the ground that it did not allege facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action, Justo Babiera appealed to the Court of First Instance of Iloilo (Exhibit M). Later on, said Justo Babiera asked for the dismissal of the complaint for unlawful detainer and filed another one for the recovery of property (Exhibit F). Inasmuch as Severino Haro was already in possession of the aforesaid two parcels of land as lessee, he bore all the expenses in the case of unlawful detainer as well as in that for recovery of the property.Fermin Bruces was Severino Haro's copartner on shares in said lands. About the month of May, 1927, Justo Babiera accompanied by his copartner on shares, Rosendo Paycol, went to where Fermin Bruces was plowing and asked the latter: "Who told you to plow here?" Fermin Bruces replied: "Severino Haro." Then Justo Babiera asked him: "If this Severino tells you to kill yourself, will you do it?" "Of course not," answered Fermin Bruces. After this interchange of words Justo Babiera told Fermin Bruces to stop plowing and to tell his master, Severino Haro, to come and plow himself. Fermin Bruces informed Severino Haro of the incident, and in answer the latter only told him not to mind it, but to go on plowing.On another occasion while Fermin Bruces was transplanting rice on the same lands, Clemente Babiera and Rosendo Paycol arrived and told him that if he continued working they would pull out someone's intestines. Fermin Bruces also informed Severino Haro of these threats, who as before, told him not to mind them, but to go on sowing.On July 23, 1927, Jose Haro, brother of Severino Haro, visited his land in the barrio of Bita, which was under the care of Victoriano Randoquile. He was told by the latter that he lacked palay seeds. At that time, Rosendo Paycol was in his field, Jose Haro and Victoriano Randoquile approached him and asked him to give them some seeds. Rosendo Paycol answered that he could not do so because he needed what he had for his own farms. Haro and Randoquile then asked him: "Which fields do you mean?" "The fields over which Copreros and Babiera are in litigation," answered Rosendo Paycol. Surprised at this answer, Jose Haro told Rosendo Paycol that what he said could not be because the lot in dispute was leased to his brother Severino Haro. Rosendo Paycol replied that attorney Buenaventura Cordova had told Clemente Babiera and Justo Babiera that Severino Haro would never be able to reap or enjoy the fruits of the land, because if they did not win the suit by fair means they would win it by foul.Ever since he had leased said land Severino Haro visited it rather often, especially during the months of June and July, which is the sowing season, trying always to return to town early. To go to the land, which was in the barrio called Bita, there was but a beaten path that passed by the house of Rosendo Paycol, copartner on shares of Justo Babiera, where the latter and his family lived.On August 21, 1927, Severino Haro, as usual, went to visit his land in the barrio of Bita, accompanied by Gregorio Torrija, Benito Carreon and Pedro Tauro. On arriving there Fermin Bruces, his copartner on shares, told him that the day before he had found Clemente Babiera's cow grazing on that land. It happened at that moment Clemente Babiera and Dominga Bores were passing by. Severino Haro then informed Clemente Babiera of what his cow had done on the former's land and told him to take better care of his cow in future and not to let it run loose. He then ordered Fermin Bruces to take the animal to where the Babiera family lived. Severino Haro was not able to return to town until almost 7 o'clock in the evening. As it was already dark, he and his companions had to make use of a torch made out of split bamboo to light them on their way. Severino Haro went ahead, followed by Pedro Tauro, who carried the torch, some 8 brazas behind, with Gregorio Torrija and Benito Carreon following. On Coming to a place in the road near Rosendo Paycol's house, Clemente Babiera suddenly sprang from the cogon grass, went after Severino Haro and struck him with his bolo in the back. On turning his head to see who had attacked him Severino Haro received another bolo blow in the forehead near the right eyebrow. In trying to defend himself with his hand he was wounded between the index finger and the thumb. He then tried to grasp his assailant but did not succeed and he fell to the ground. Then Justo Babiera appeared and placing himself upon Severino Haro's stomach, held the latter's hands. Later, Dominga Bores appeared on the scene and held both knees of the wounded man. When Justo Babiera arrived, a voice was heard saying: "Hold him, papa," and at the same time, Severino Haro's voice was heard saying: "Help! help!" Pedro Tauro wished to come near in order to help Severino Haro, but Clemente Babiera raised his bolo in the air and kept on brandishing it to warn everybody off. Pedro Tauro, in fear, stepped back, dropping the torch he carried. Not far from there were also Buenaventura Gabalfin and Gregorio Paycol, who threatened to kill Severino Haro's companions if they helped him. After the torch had been extinguished they heard a voice which they recognized as Severino Haro's saying: "Uncle Justo, have patience with me, for I have done no wrong." Then they heard another voice, that of Dominga Bores, which said: "Here is the revolver; let us return." Before the assailants left two or three revolver shots were heard. When Severino Haro's companions saw that their assailants had already departed, they drew near to where Severino lay stretched out to see what had happened to him. Severino Haro told them not to fear for he did not feel as if he were going to die, and calling his copartner on shares, Fermin Bruces, directed him to bring a cot and take him to town. Pedro Tauro and Gregorio Torrija did as Severino Haro wished, and on arriving at the barrio of Santa Monica, they by chance came upon a truck in which were some policemen. They place the wounded man in the same truck and took him to Saint Paul's Hospital in the City of Iloilo. When Severino Haro was taken to the town he did not have his revolver and the cartridge belt, without the holster, was found by Gregorio Torrija near where the incident took place.When Severino Haro was already in Saint Paul's Hospital he was examined by Dr. Mariano Arroy, who issued a certificate stating that he found the following wounds: Three on the right frontal regions; one on the right forehead taking in the soft parts up to the auditory arch; on the right palmar arch; another on the left arm; a deep one reaching down to the spinal column on the four slight wounds on the right thigh; the ones on the forehead and the dorsal region being mortal of necessity. All the wounds were caused, in the doctor's opinion, by a sharp-edged and pointed weapon, and while the combatants were on the same plane, except the wounds on the middle of the calf which must have been caused while the assaulted party was on a lower plane than his assailant, and the wounds on the right thigh, which must have been inflicted while the assailant was on a horizontal plane.On the same morning, August 22, 1927, and in the same hospital, Severino Haro made a sworn statement before the deputy fiscal, Edmundo S. Piccio (Exhibit I), relating the occurrence and mentioning the persons who were present. This sworn statement was ratified by him before the same deputy fiscal on the 27th of the said month and year when he had given up all hope of recovery.In this statement, Exhibit I, Severino Haro, among other things, said the following:"Without warning, I received a slash on the left shoulder. On turning back my face, I saw Clemente Babiera, and he then gave me another slash on the forehead just above the right eyebrow. At that moment I also received a cut on the right hand, because on receiving the blow on the forehead I defended myself with that hand. I then grasped him because I could no longer support myself due to my two wounds. Then I fell. When I fell, Clemente Babiera's father placed himself upon my stomach, while his (Clemente's) wife sat on my feet, while Justo Babiera, Clemente's father, grasped my two hands and said to me, "There, now draw your revolver" addressing me. I shouted to my companion for help, for I felt I would die and while they approached, Clemente Babiera turned upon them, and said: "Do not approach for you have nothing to do with this. Whoever comes near gets a slash from this bolo." I shammed death and when they left me, and upon seeing that neither Clemente, nor his father, nor his wife remained, my three companions came up to me from their hiding places. One Aunario, copartner on shares of Jose Abada, who lived near there, also came up to me, and later, Fermin."In hisante-mortemdeclaration made on the 27th of August, 1927 before the same deputy fiscal, Severino Haro, among other things, said the following:"They repeatedly passed their fingers over my upper lip and at the same time see if I still breathed; they felt and opened my eyelids and then inserted a finger in my pupil, because they believed that if I was insensible, I was already dead. They knelt on my stomach and one knelt on my lower limbs, and made a pass with something, which seems to me was bamboo or a bolo, over the anterior surface of my calf, and Dominga then took the revolver from me. I got up because I was afraid Dominga would shoot me and when I attempted to escape Clemente Babiera pursued me and gave me another cut on the left side of the waist, and I think the blow struck the ammunition belt, and if it had not been for the belt it would have severed my waist."The defense tried to prove the following facts:On the afternoon of August 21, 1927 Clemente Babiera went to a place called Caboloan, passing by the house of one Oper, located in the barrio of Bita, Oton, Iloilo. While he was in Oper's house, his father Justo Babiera arrived, and some moments later Severino Haro also arrived, and at once said to him: "Clemente, why do you leave your cow loose?" Clemente denied the imputation and said that his cow was tied. Severino Haro insisted, and added that said animal had damaged his sugar-cane plantation, and therefore, Fermin Bruces, his copartner on shares caught and tied it, by his order, to a mango tree. Clemente Babiera answered that he left the case in his hands and that he could charge him what he would, for the damages occasioned by his cow. As Severino Haro charged him P2 for the damage, Clemente told him that at the moment he had no money, but that on the following day he would get money from the town market and pay him. Severino Haro accepted the promise and left. Clemente Babiera in turn retired to his house, together with Dominga Bores and his father, and upon reaching a coconut palm they met Fermin Bruces, copartner on shares with Severino Haro, who told them that he had already tied up the cow as per his master's order. At about 7 o'clock in the evening while Clemente Babiera was in his house conversing with his father about the land which they had in Caboloan, which was attached by the Government, he suddenly heard a commotion; he went to the porch of the house to see what had happened and saw a number of persons coming one carrying a light and another leading his cow by rope. Clemente Babiera told his father what he saw and went out to meet said persons, and saw Buenaventura Cabalfin leading his cow by the rope and Severino Haro followed by his companions Pedro Tauro, Gregorio Torrija, Benito Carreon, Margarito Mediavilla and Fermin Bruces. Clemente Babiera then asked Severino Haro: "Why are you taking my cow away? Haven't I promised to pay you tomorrow the loss caused by the animal? If you have no confidence in me, then prepare a receipt showing that tomorrow without fail, I will pay you." In reply, Severino Haro only said to Buenaventura Cabalfin: "Get on, proceed." Clemente Babiera took hold of the rope by which the cow was led, and said: "Buenaventura, stop!" Severino Haro then grasped Clemente Babiera by the hand and pulled him to one side. Clemente Babiera disengaged himself from Severino Haro's grasp, but Margarito Mediavilla struck him with a bolo at the base of his little finger. Feeling himself wounded, Clemente Babiera tried to unsheathe his bolo intending to return the blow to Margarito Mediavilla but failed to do so, because he heard someone say: "Shoot him!" Immediately thereafter he saw Severino Haro with revolver unholstered, and without any loss of time he went up to the latter and at that moment shots were heard. Clemente Babiera then began to slash blindly right and left without considering what he was at, catching Severino Haro in the back, as a result of which the latter fell to the ground on his back. Clemente Babiera threw himself upon him, held him down so he could not get up, and asked him: "Where is your revolver?" Severino Haro answered that he did not have it. Then Clemente Babiera raised Severino Haro's hands and felt his back, but did not find the revolver. Justo Babiera, Clemente's father, then appeared, and was told by his son: "Papa, hold him, while I search for his revolver." When Clemente Babiera saw Fermin Bruces he thought that the latter meant to attack him because he had one hand behind, where he carried his bolo, so Severino turned on him, but his wife, Dominga Bores, restrained him telling him not to approach. One Nario also wanted to approach in order to defend Severino Haro but dared not do so in view of Clemente Babiera's threats. After having made fruitless search for Severino Haro's revolver, Clemente Babiera, his father, and his wife went back to their house.After charging Rosendo Paycol with the care of the children, the three went to town and passed the night in Florencio Mayordomo's house. On the following morning Dominga Bores went to attorney Buenaventura Cordova's house and informed him of what had happened. Buenaventura Cordova then went to Florencio Mayordomo's house and told Dominga Bores to return to the place of the incident in order to look for the revolver and deliver it to the Constabulary if she found it. Then he accompanied Clemente Babiera to the office of Captain Gatuslao of the Constabulary at Fort San Pedro, to whom they delivered the holster of the revolver and the three shells they had picked up on the night of the incident. Dominga Bores having found the revolver in a furrow near the place of the crime took it to Iloilo and delivered it to Captain Gatuslao of the Constabulary between 9 and 10 o'clock in the morning.Dr. Jose Gonzales Roxas, Constabulary physician, treated Clemente Babiera's wound and certified that the same was 2 centimeters long and half a centimeter deep and was situated at the base of the little finger of the right hand, taking in the cellular tissue of the skin and the exterior ligament of the wrist.In rebuttal, the prosecution tried to prove that at about half past five in the morning of August 22, 1927, Dominga Bores was seen in the ground floor of the provincial government building of Iloilo, carrying a package under her arm and from there she went to the public market of Iloilo.There is no question that Severino Haro had leased from Basilio Copreros two parcels of land the ownership of which had passed to him due to Justo Babiera's failure to repurchase them within the stipulated period. Nor is there any question that the latter tried to recover them, first, by anaccion publiciana(action for unlawful detainer), and then by an action for the recovery of possession. There is likewise no question that Severino Haro paid the expenses of the defendant Basilio Copreros for the reason that he was already in possession of said lands as lessee. There is also no question that Clemente Babiera's cow damaged the plantings of Fermin Bruce, for which reason the letter caught said cow, tied it, and notified his master of the matter when the latter went to visit the lands leased by him. Neither is there any question that there was an agreement between Clemente Babiera and Severino Haro whereby the latter ordered his copartner on shares Fermin Bruces, to take the cow near Clemente Babiera's house and tie it up there. In like manner there is no question that at about 7 o'clock in the evening of August 21, 1927, when Severino Haro and his companions were returning to the town of Oton, and upon their coming near Rosendo Paycol's house, in which were Clemente Babiera, his father Justo Babiera, and his mistress Dominga Bores, said Severino Haro had an encounter with Clemente Babiera in which Severino Haro received several wounds in consequence of which he died a week later in Saint Paul's Hospital of Iloilo.The only question to determine in the present appeal is whether, as the prosecution contends, Severino Haro was suddenly and treacherously attacked by Clemente Babiera, aided by his father and his mistress Dominga Bores; or, as the defense contends, Severino Haro notwithstanding the agreement between himself and Clemente Babiera by which the latter was to indemnify him for the damages caused by his cow, wanted to take the animal to town; that in trying to prevent it, Clemente Babiera was grasped by the hand by Severino Haro and pulled to one side; that in disengaging himself Clemente Babiera received a bolo cut from Margarito Mediavilla that wounded the little finger of his right hand; and that Severino Haro then unsheathed his revolver and fired several shots, in view of which Clemente Babiera struck right and left with his bolo, thus causing the former's wounds.In order to decide the question thus raised, it is necessary to take into account all the circumstances, previous, coetaneous and subsequently to the incident in question, and to determine who had, or could have had, motives to assault the other.We have seen that Justo Babiera sold two parcels of land to Basilio Copreros with the right of repurchase, and that, having failed to repurchase them within the period stipulated, the title thereto was consolidated, in the purchaser, who leased them to Severino Haro, the latter taking possession of them. Justo Babiera restored to every lawful means to regain possession of said parcels of land, first by anaccion publiciana, which failed, and then by an action for the recovery of possession. Severino Haro paid the expenses of Basilio Copreros in order to carry on the suits. Such interested intervention on Severino Haro's part without doubt must have vexed Justo Babiera, for in the month of May 1927, he went with his copartner on shares, Rosendo Paycol, to where Fermin Bruces, Severino Haro's copartner, was plowing, and asked him who had ordered him there, and when Fermin Bruces answered that it was Severino Haro, Justo asked him whether he would commit suicide if told to do so by said Severino Haro, and then told him to tell his master to go and plow himself. Later on, Clemente Babiera, Justo Babiera's son, accompanied by his copartner Rosendo Paycol, seeing that Fermin Bruces went on working the land, told him that if he continued plowing, Clemente would pull out someone's intestines. If all these threats are true, as we believe they are, then Justo Babiera and Clemente Babiera must have borne Severino Haro deep resentment, doubtless believing that it was due to him that they could not recover their two parcels of land, and this was sufficient and adequate to move them, upon the failure of lawful means, to resort to violence.It has been contended by the defense that the defendant-appellant, Clemente Babiera, only acted in defense of his life and property, having been obliged to resort to arms on seeing his life endangered, contending that the provocation consisted in that after Severino Haro had agreed to an indemnity of P2 for the damage caused, the latter wanted to take Clemente Babiera's cow to the town, and that the attack consisted in that Margarito Mediavilla gave him a bolo blow on the little finger of the right hand, and that Severino Haro threatened him with his revolver and fired several shots at him.Examined in the light of the ordinary conduct of men, Severino Haro's alleged attitude, in having tried to take Clemente Babiera's cow after having agreed to accept P2 for the damages, and having ordered that the animal be returned to its owner, is highly illogical, and not a scintilla of evidence has been presented to explain this change of determination, as unexpected as it is unreasonable.With respect to the allegation that Margarito Mediavilla and Severino Haro began the attack, inasmuch as it has not been proved that they were the instigators, it cannot be conceived that they committed said unlawful aggression, for he who has no reason to provoke, has no reason to attack unlawfully.The defense also attempted to prove that Severino Haro was of a quarrelsome disposition, provoking, irascible, and fond of starting quarrels in the municipality of Oton, but the trial judge would not permit it.While it is true that when the defense of the accused is that he acted in self-defense, he may prove the deceased to have been of a quarrelsome, provoking and irascible disposition, the proof must be of his general reputation in the community and not of isolated and specific acts (Underhill Criminal Evidence, par. 325, p.570), such as the accused Clemente Babiera tried to prove, and hence the lower court did not err in not admitting such proof. But even if it had been proved by competent evidence that the deceased was of such a disposition, nevertheless, it would not have been sufficient to overthrow the conclusive proof that it was the said accused who treacherously attacked the deceased.Another circumstance which shows the falsity of the theory of the defense is that of having made Buenaventura Cabalfin take part as the person whom Severino Haro employed to lead Clemente Babiera's cow. If Severino Haro's copartner, Fermin Bruces, whom he had told to return said cow to Clemente Babiera was with his master on that night, together with other companions, what need was there of said Severino Haro's employing the services of another person and one not belonging to his group? The plan of the defense necessitated a provocation and to that end they conceived the idea of the breach of the supposed agreement on the return of the animal through the payment of an indemnity of P2, making use as an instrument of one on whom the defense could depend to serve as witness, and there was no one better suited for such a purpose than Buenaventura Cabalfin who according to the witnesses for the prosecution, was at the place of the crime with Gregorio Paycol threatening the deceased's friends if they offered to help him.To rebut the evidence of the prosecution that Dominga Bores was the one who by order of Clemente Babiera took Severino Haro's revolver from him on the night in question, the defense tried to prove that on the following morning attorney Buenaventura Cordova, a relative of the Babieras, told Dominga Bores to return to the place of the incident and look for said weapon, and that she found it in a furrow near the place and took it to the office of the Constabulary in Iloilo between 9 and 10 o'clock in the morning. But the rebuttal evidence of the prosecution disproved this contention and showed that Dominga Bores did not have to look for the revolver in the field, since at half past five in the morning she was already in the provincial building of Iloilo carrying a package under her arm.With regard to the small wound at the base of the little finger of the right hand which Clemente Babiera showed to the Constabulary physician as having been caused by Margarito Mediavilla, we are convinced that the latter was not in the company of Severino Haro on the night in question and could not have inflicted such a wound. Bearing in mind the plan of the defense, it may safely be said that in order to cast an appearance of reality on the concocted plea of an unlawful attack and self-defense, Clemente Babiera inflicted on himself the slight wound; since, if in order to escape military service there were men who mutilated themselves, who would not wound himself slightly in order to escape a life penalty?The facts related above have been proven beyond a reasonable doubt and constitute the crime of murder defined in article 403 of the Penal Code, there being present at the commission of the crime, the qualifying circumstance of treachery, consisting in the accused Clemente Babiera having attacked Severino Haro suddenly while the latter had his back turned, inflicting various wounds on his body as a result of which he died a week later, said Clemente Babiera being criminally liable as principal by direct participation.Justo Babiera and Dominga Bores are also liable but as accomplices, because, while they did not take a direct part in the infliction of the wounds that caused Severino Haro's death, or cooperated by acts without which they could not have been inflicted, or induced Clemente Babiera to inflict them, yet they took part in the commission of the crime by simultaneous acts consisting in the former having mounted Severino Haro's body and held down his hands, while the latter sat on his knees while he lay stretched out on the ground in order to allow Clemente Babiera to search the body for his revolver, Justo Babiera and Dominga Bores cannot be held as accomplices of the crime of murder, inasmuch as it does not appear to have been proven that they knew the manner in which Clemente Babiera was going to assault Severino Haro, in accordance with the provision of article 79 of the Penal Code, to the effect that the circumstances which consist in the material execution of the act, or in the means employed to accomplish it, shall serve to aggravate or mitigate the liability of those persons only who had knowledge of them at the time of the act or their cooperation therein. Although in the instant case the treachery is not considered a generic aggravating, but a qualifying circumstance, nevertheless, it does not fail to produce a special aggravation.To graduate the penalty, we are not to consider any modifying circumstance of the criminal liability, for while it is true that Clemente Babiera took advantage of the darkness of nighttime, this circumstance is included in treachery, inasmuch as, considering the fact that Severino Haro was followed by several companions, the accused would not have been able to conceal himself in the cogon grass nor attack the deceased from behind without being seen in time and prevented from executing his criminal purpose had not been for the darkness of the night.The penalty provided by law for the crime of murder namely, that ofcadena temporalin its maximum degree to death must therefore be imposed upon Clemente Babiera in its medium degree, that is, life imprisonment.The penalty provided for in article 404 of the Penal Code for the crime of homicide isreclusion temporalin its full extent, and the one next lower isprision mayorin its full extent, which is the penalty that must be imposed on Justo Babiera and Dominga Bores as accomplices in the crime of homicide (art. 67, Penal Code). In graduating the penalty, the aggravating circumstances of nocturnity must be taken into consideration, without any extenuating circumstances to offset it, and therefore said penalty ofprision mayormust be imposed in its maximum degree, that is, ten years and 1 day.As there are three persons civilly liable, one as principal in the crime of murder and two as accomplices in that of homicide, we must fix the share, for which each must answer, of the P1,000 fixed by the trial court, in accordance with the provision of article 124 of the Penal Code, that is, P600 for Clemente Babiera and P400 for Justo Babiera and Dominga Bores, each of the latter being liable solidarily between themselves for their share, and subsidiarily liable for the share of the former and the former for the share of the latter, according to the provision of article 125 of the same Code.By virtue whereof, the appealed judgment is hereby modified, and it is held that Justo Babiera and Dominga Bores are guilty of the crime of homicide as accomplices and each sentenced to ten years and 1 day prision mayor, and to pay the sum of P400 jointly and severally, and Clemente Babiera to pay the sum of P600, the former to be subsidiarily liable for the latter's share, and the latter for the former's share, payment to be made to the heirs of the deceased Severino Haro, the appealed judgment being affirmed in all other respects with the proportional costs against each. So ordered.Avancena, C.J., Johnson, Street, Malcolm, Villamor, Ostrand and Romualdez, JJ.,concur.

G.R. No. L-8332 November 13, 1913THE UNITED STATES,plaintiff-appellee,vs.PIO MERCADO, TOMAS MERCADO, andCATALINO MERCADO,defendants-appellants.Eugenio Paguia, for appellantsOfficee of the Solicitor-General Harvey, for appellee.JOHNSON,J.:These defendants were charged with the crime of coaccion in the Court of First Instance of the Province of Bulacan. On the 13th of March, 1912, one Claro Mercado presented a complaint against the defendants in the court of the justice of the peace of Baliuag. The justice of the peace conducted a preliminary examination and found that there was probable cause for believing that the defendants were guilty of the crime charged and held them for trial in the Court of First Instance. On the 21st of March, 1912, the prosecuting attorney of said province presented the complaint, which alleged:That the said accused on December 22, 1911, in the municipality of Baliuag, Province of Bulacan, P. I., did willfully and criminally, without legitimate authority therefore, and by means of violence or force employed upon the person of Claro Mercado, prevent the latter from rendering aid to Maria R. Mateo in order that Santiago Mercado might at his pleasure maltreat the said Maria R. Mateo, in a violation of law.After hearing the evidence adduced during the trial of the cause, the Honorable Alberto Barretto, judge, found the defendants guilty of the crime in the complaint, without any aggravating or extenuating circumstances, and sentenced each of them to be imprisoned for a period of two months and one day ofarresto mayor, with the accessory penalties of the law, to pay a fine of 325pesetasand in case of insolvency to suffer subsidiary imprisonment, allowing to the defendants one-half of the time they had already suffered in prison, and each to pay one-third part of the costs. From that sentence each of the defendants appealed to this court and made the following assignments of error:I. The trial court erred in overruling the objection of the accused to the private prosecutor's question referring to the character of the witness.II. The trial court erred in reaching the conclusion that the crime prosecuted was committed and that the accused are responsible therefor.III. The trial court erred in sentencing the accused.IV. The trial court erred in not having the accused testify in their own behalf, as they offered to do, allowing them to testify in the same way as he did the sole witness for the defense.With reference to the first assignment of error, we find by referring to page 75 of the record, that Mr. Ricardo Gonzalez Lloret, attorney for the private prosecutor, asked the witness for the defense, the said Santiago Mercado, who is mentioned in the complaint presented in said cause, the following question:How many times have you been convicted of assault upon other persons?To this question, the defendant Tomas Mercado objected on the ground that the question was impertinent. Mr. Lloret explained the purpose of his question by saying:I wish to demonstrate that he has a pugnacious disposition. I have had occasion to defend him in various causes for assault.Upon the question and the objection Judge Barretto ruled that "the character of the witness has an intimate relation or may have a strong relation with the facts being investigated in the present cause. The objection is overruled."To that ruling of the court the defendant duly accepted. Said exception is assigned here as the first assignment of error. The only argument which the appellant presents in support of his assignment of error is that the question had no relation to the question which was being discussed by the court and id not tend to show that the defendants were either guilty or not guilty of the crime charged; that questions tending to disclose the character of a witness are immaterial. In reply to the argument of the appellant, the Attorney-General contends that the question was a proper question, because it tended to impugn the credibility of the witness and that such questions were for that purpose material and pertinent. It will be remembered that the complaint charged that on the occasion when the alleged crime was committed Santiago Mercado was attempting to and did assault and illtreat one Maria R. Mateo. In answer to said question, the witness admitted that complaint had been presented against him for the offense of assault and battery.The prosecution, in order to show the circumstances under which the crime charged here was actually committed, showed that this witness, Santiago Mercado, had assaulted and illtreated Maria R. Mateo, under the circumstances described in the complaint. That was an important fact. If the said assault did not actually take place, then the theory of the prosecution must fail. If there was no assault or attempted assault, there was no occasion for the alleged interference on the part of the said Claro Mercado to prevent it, and the probability of the guilt of the defendants is greatly lessened. If the witness who had committed the alleged assault, had assaulted other persons and had been prosecuted therefor, may that fact be considered by the court in weighing the proof and in testing the credibility of the witness? It was an important fact to prove that Santiago Mercado, at the time and place mentioned in the complaint, had assaulted or attempted to assault or illtreat Maria R. Mateo, in order to show that there was occasion for the inference of Claro Mercado.lawph!1.netGenerally speaking, a witness cannot be impeached by the party against whom he has been called, except by showing (a) that he has made contradictory statements: or (b) by showing thathis general reputation for the truth, honesty, or integrity is bad. (Sec. 342, Act No. 190.) The question to which the defendant objected neither attempted to show that the witness had made contradictory statements nor that his general reputation for truth, honesty, or integrity was bad. While you cannot impeach the credibility of a witness, except by showing that he has made contradictory statements or that his general reputation for truth, honesty, or integrity is bad, yet, nevertheless, you may show by an examination of the witness himself or from the record of the judgment, that he has been convicted of a high crime. (Sec. 342, Act No. 190.) In the present case, the other offense to which the question above related was not a high crime, as that term is generally used, and we assume that the phrase "high crime," as used in section 342, is used in its ordinary signification. High crimes are generally defined as such immoral and unlawful acts as are nearly allied and equal in guilt to felonies. We believe that the objection to the above question was properly interposed and should have been sustained. The question now arises, did the admission of the question prejudice the rights of the defendants? If there was proof enough adduced during the trial of the cause, excluding the particular proof brought out by this question to show that the defendants are guilty of the crime. then the question and answer and the ruling of the court upon the same did not affect prejudicially the interests of the defendants. Errors committed by the trial court, which are not prejudicial to the rights of the parties, should be disregarded by the court. In our opinion the evidence clearly shows that the witness committed the assault to which reference is made in the complaint in the present cause. Whether he had committed other assaults or not was a matter of no importance in the present action. The admission or rejection, therefore, of the proof to which such question related could in no way prejudice the rights of the defendants.The second and third assignments of error relate to the sufficiency of the proof adduced during the trial of the cause to show that the defendants were guilty of the crime charged. A question of fact only is raised by these assignments of error. After a careful examination of the proof, we are convinced that the same shows, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the defendants are each guilty in the manner and form charged in the complaint. We find no reason for modifying the conclusions of fact reached by the lower court.With reference to the fourth assignment of error, an examination of the record shows that but one witness was examined for the defense: that was the said Santiago Mercado. At the close of the examination of said witness, we find the following statement by the accused:The accused state that should they testify they would testify in the same way as the witness Santiago R. Mercado, with whose testimony they close their evidence.Both parties close their evidence.Even admitting that the accused, had they testified, would have made the same declarations as those by the only witness, Santiago Mercado, we are of the opinion that such declarations would not have been sufficient, inasmuch as they would have added nothing to the record, except an accumulation of proof, to have shown that the defendants were not guilty of the crime charged. We find no reason in the fourth assignments of error for modifying the conclusions of the lower court.After a careful examination of the record, we are persuaded that the same shows, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the defendants were guilty of the crime charged and that the sentence of the lower court should be affirmed, with costs. So ordered.Arellano, C.J., Torres and Carson, JJ., concur.Moreland, J., dissents.