THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS, PLAINTIFF AND APPELLEE, VS. EMILIANO PORTENTO AND NICOLAS PORTENTO, DEFENDANTS AND APPELLANTS.

The appellants pray for  the reversal of the judgment rendered by the Court of  First  Instance of Marinduque against them,  sentencing each  of them for the crime of homicide  to  fourteen years, eight months and one  day reclusion temporal, and to  indemnify the heirs of the deceased jointly and severally in the sum of P500, with the costs.

The appellants assign as  errors committed by the trial court the finding that certain  statement attributed to the deceased Venancio Parley as a valid and admissible ante mortem declaration; the giving of credit  to the witnesses for the prosecution, Alejandra Murillo and  Dalmacio Prado; and its failure to give the appellants the benefit of the reasonable doubt, convicting them of the crime  of homicide. The question presented by the first assignment  of error was raised for the first time in this court.  The testimony of the mother of the deceased as to the latter’s statements at the point of death was not opposed or objected to during the  first hearing of the case.  At any rate,  taking  into account the  circumstances  of the case and specially the fact that said statements were made immediately after the aggression, they can, as  the Attorney-General says, be considered as a part of the  res gestse.

We find in the  record no sufficient reason for discrediting the testimony of Alejandra Murillo and Dalmacio Prado whom the trial judge saw when testifying and gave credit to.

We find sufficiently proven beyond a reasonable doubt the guilt of the  defendants as  responsible for the  death of Venancio Parley,  whom they killed, according to the  evidence, in a joint aggression with their brother Gabino Portento, who has pleaded guilty and was convicted in another case for the same crime.
<iase for="" the="" same="" crime.

The  circumstantial evidence  as  to abuse  of   superior strength  is not sufficient, in our opinion, to establish it as an aggravating circumstance, and cannot be taken into consideration in the imposition of the penalty as recommended by the Attorney-General.

For the foregoing, the  judgment  appealed  from  is affirmed in all its parts, with the costs against the appellants. So ordered.

Johnson, Street, Malcolm,  Villamor, and Ostrand,  JJ., concur.