THE UNITED STATES, PLAINTIFF AND APPELLEE, VS. SIMEON BRIONES (ALIAS OCUANG), GAUDENCIO MADERA, NARCISO JALLORES, AND VICENTE PATRIARCA, DEFENDANTS AND APPELLANTS.

These defendants were charged with the crime of “robo con homicidio.” The
complaint alleged:

“That on or about April 6, 1901, in the sitio of Sabang Bunga, of the
municipality of Tigaon, Ambos Camarines, the said accused, Simeon Briones
(alias Ocuang), Gaudencio Madera, Vicente Patriarca, and Narciso
Jallores, all armed with bolos, did, for the purpose of robbing and plundering
the houses of Pablo Zamora and Ventura de Luna, enter the same and, by the use
of violence and intimidation against the families of these latter, maliciously,
criminally, and unlawfully abstract money of the value of P500, clothing of the
value of more than P100, belonging to the family of Pablo Zamora, and clothing
of the value of P25, belonging to the family of Ventura de Luna, against the
will of the said owners.

“That immediately thereafter and by reason and on the occasion of the said
robbery, the accused Gaudencio Madera inflicted cuts with a bolo upon Pablo
Zamora and Ventura de Luna, the accused Narciso Jallores inflicted cuts with a
bolo upon Sinforoso Clerigo, Juan Clerigo, and Ignacio Clerigo, the accused
Vicente Patriarca inflicted cuts with a bolo upon Vildo Patingo, and the accused
Simeon Briones (alias Ocuang) inflicted cuts upon Fermin de Mesa, as a
result of which cuts all the said injured parties, with the exception of Fermin
de Mesa, then and there died; which acts were committed with violation of the
law.”

Upon said complaint the said defendants were arrested, arraigned, tried,
found guilty, and sentenced by the Honorable Percy M. Moir. The court found that
there existed the aggravating circumstance mentioned in article 10, paragraph
15, of the Penal Code, and gave the accused the benefit of article 11 of said
code. The sentence is as follows :

“The court, therefore, in accordance with article 503 of the Penal Code,
sentences Simeon Briones (alias Ocuang), Gaudencio Madera, Narciso Jallores, and
Vicente Patriarca,, and each of them, to life imprisonment in Bilibid Prison, as
provided by law; to indemnify the heirs of Pablo Zamora in the sum of P200,
value of the clothing and money which belonged to them; to indemnify the heirs
of Ventura de Luna in the sum of P25, value of the articles taken from his house
as charged in the “querella,” and each to pay one-fourth part of the costs of
this prosecution. The accused are also sentenced to suffer .the accessory
penalties provided by article 54 of the Penal Code.”

From this sentence the accused and each of them appealed to this court and
made the following assignments of error:

“I. That the evidence adduced does not justify the sentence of the court.

“II. That the evidence does not show beyond a reasonable doubt that the
accused, or any of them, are guilty of the crime of robbery with homicidio,

“III. That the sentence of the lower court is contrary to
law.”

After the attorney for the appellants as well as the prosecuting attorney had
presented their briefs in this court, the appellant Simeon Briones (alias
Ocuang) on the 1st of October, 1914, withdrew his appeal and the sentence of the
lower court as to him became final.

Inasmuch as the assignments of error present a question of fact only, they
may all be discussed together.

The lower court, after hearing the evidence and seeing the witnesses, made
the following finding of facts:

On the date mentioned in the “querella,” to wit, the 6th day of April, 1901,
in the sitio of Sabang Buñga, municipality of Tigaon, Ambos Camarines,
there were living with the fisherman Pablo Zamora, his family, and various other
fishermen employed by him. About 7 o’clock at night on said date there came to
his house a band of robbers composed of about 20 men. Four of the members of
this band, armed with bolos, entered the house of Pablo Zamora, tied him and the
other men up, made them go down outside of the house, and demanded of Pablo
Zamora where he kept his money. He replied that his daughter kept the money; the
four men then went back inside the house and demanded the money of the daughter,
Sotera Zamora. She gave them all the money there was in the house—about P500.
After looting the place and taking all the clothing they could find the robbers
went outside the house again where they had left Pablo Zamora and the other men
tied and proceeded to murder them with their bolos. Witnesses state that
Gaudencio Madera attacked Pablo Zamora and Narciso Jallores attacked Sinforoso,
Ignacio, and Juan Clerigo, and Vicente Patriarca attacked Vildo Patingo. All
five of these were killed and another man, Fermin de Mesa was severely wounded
by Simeon Briones. One of the blows given to Fermin de Mesa, however, cut his
bonds and he escaped. The robbers then left and went to the house of a neighbor
20 or 30 meters distant, where they found Ventura de Luna with his wife. They
killed him and wounded another man who was going there to buy some cigarettes.
After killing Ventura.de Luna they proceeded to rob the house, leaving his wife
unharmed. The name of his wife is Dominga Pareja. There were six men killed and
two wounded.

It would appear from the evidence that there were four persons by the name of
Clerigo killed, though three only are mentioned in the complaint, the other
being Irineo Clerigo; neither is the wounding of Ignacio Padis mentioned in the
complaint, although he was badly wounded at the same time by the same men.

The wife of Ventura de Luna called for help, but none came and she remained
at the house all that night. Her husband died about midnight, she says, as a
result of the wounds he received.

The wife of Pablo Zamora, his daughter, and two other women who appear to
have been living in the house, left there after the robbers had gone to the
house of Ventura de Luna and hid themselves in the woods.

Fermin de Mesa, who escaped when his bonds were cut by a blow from a bolo,
hid behind the house of Ventura de Luna. That same night, after the killing,
some American soldiers came to the neighborhood of the occurrence and fired off
their guns. This fact is clearly and conclusively established by the evidence.
It does not appear from the evidence, however, whether these soldiers saw the
murdered people, or whether they simply were in the immediate locality. The
witness Sotera Zamora says they were on the other side of the river from them, a
distance of about 20 “brazas,” but Juliana Sape says they came to the house and
fired off their guns. There can be no doubt that the dead men were there, but it
appears, so far as the alcalde was concerned, that he knew of it first from
Juliana Sape, who told him of the occurrence on Easter Sunday morning and he
went to the place with the commanding officer. If the soldiers had really seen
the dead men, it is reasonable to suppose that a report would have been made of
the facts, and the lack of knowledge on the part of the alcalde would induce the
belief that the soldiers did not see the dead men when they visited the spot.
The morning following the occurrence Juliana Sape went to the town of Tigaon and
made a report of the occurrence to the alcalde, Senor Gregorio Natividad, who
notified the military authorities, and then, together with the commanding
officer and others, went to the place of the occurrence where they found the
dead bodies mentioned in the complaint, as well as two people badly wounded.

A strong effort has been made to impeach the witnesses presented by the
prosecution, and for that reason a brief statement of the declaration of each
witness will be made.

The first witness called was Juliana Sape, who testified as follows:

That she is 42 years of age; widow of Pablo Zamora; lived in the
sitio of Sabang Bunga, municipality of Tigaon, on the 6th of April,
1901, when her house was sacked and her husband killed. That about 7 o’clock on
the night in question a band of more than 30 men came to the house for the
purpose of robbing them; that when they arrived they immediately tied up her
husband, took him down below, asked him where he kept his money; he told them
his aughter had it. The robbers then went back into the house and obtained the
money from the daughter, the money taken amounting to P500. The robbers then
sacked the house, taking all their clothes and everything they had in the house,
and they then turned to where they had left the men they had tied and Gaudencio
Madera gave a “tajo” (bolo thrust) to her husband Pablo Zamora; Narciso Jallores
gave a “tajo” to Sinforoso, Ignacio, and Juan Clerigo; and Vicente Patriarca
gave “tajos” to Vildo Patingo; that after the robbers had distributed these bolo
cuts they went to the house of a neighbor, Dominga Pareja. Juliana Sape,
together with other women who were in the house, then made her escape to the
woods but did not stay there very long as some American soldiers came to the
neighborhood to rescue them. Her husband was tied, she says, at the time he was
killed and he remained tied; that there were killed at the same time, Sinforoso,
Ignacio, and Juan Clerigo, and Vildo Patingo; that the value of the clothes
stolen amounted to P100 and the money stolen to P500; that P100 out of the F500
belonged to her husband and the other P400 to the fishermen living there, as
their share in the fishing.

The witness further says three women were with her that night in the woods;
they were Sotera Zamora, her stepdaughter, Bibiana Zamora, the sister of her
husband, and Eusebia Clerigo, her mother, and that they were about 20 brazas
distant from the American soldiers when the latter fired off their guns, and
they were afraid to come out of the woods.

On further examination by the fiscal she identifies Gaudencio Madera, Vicente
Patriarca, and Narciso Jallores. She states she has known Vicente Patriarca and
Narciso Jallores always; she was formerly afraid of making a statement but she
is not now as the pueblo is tranquil.

The court can see nothing in the testimony of this witness that would lead to
any doubt of her veracity. She states that immediately after the killing she was
frightened. And the court considers she may well have been frightened after
witnessing such a night of bloodshed and terror as she had witnessed. She had
been cautioned by the murderers that if she told they would follow and kill her.
It was a time when revolutionary parties were prowling through the country and
she had sufficient reason because of the threats of the robbers to keep silent.
Her failure and refusal at the time to give the names of the assailants seem
natural and reasonable under all the circumstances.

The next witness called by the Government was Sotera Zamora, who testified as
follows:

That she is 33 years of age; married, and that she is the
daughter of Pablo Zamora.

Her evidence, in effect, is the same as that of Juliana Sape, her
stepmother.

She says there first entered the house four armed men; Gaudencio Madera,
Vicente Patriarca, Narciso Jallores, and one unknown; that they tied her father
and took him below, and that Gaudencio Madera came back and asked her for the
money. He entered a “copete” where he found Sinforoso Clerigo, and that, when he
went below he gave orders to his “gente” and they began to take clothing; she
testifies she gave Gaudencio Madera P500 which she had in a “tampipi;” that the
four men were armed with “minasbad,” “palmabrava” and “rodelas;” that Gaudencio
Madera went down in front of her father and asked him where the rest of his
money was and that he then gave him a bolo thrust in the breast; she states she
did not see the others attacked; that after she saw her father killed she was in
such distress she did not know what happened; that she had seen Narciso Jallores
enter the house and that he was armed as were the others; that after the robbers
left she and the other women returned to the house and they found her father
lying dead together with others, some of whom were killed and some wounded,
there being three wounded.

Fermin de Mesa, 30 years of age, was the next witness called for the
prosecution.

He is one of the men who was in the house of Pablo Zamora on the night of the
robbery and murder and was badly wounded. He has the scar of a bad wound just
above the elbow of his left arm which cut in very deep and seems to have cut the
muscles and his arm is almost useless. He has another wound on the left shoulder
which apparently was very serious, and he had a third wound near the wrist.

He testifies to practically the same facts told by Sotera Zamora. He says
there were more than thirty men in the gang; that four of the robbers entered
the house; that he knew them and he identifies all the accused in court; that
when the robbers arrived they tied the people who were in the house, took them
outside the house and then went back inside; that there were four persons
bearing the name of Clerigo who were tied; namely, Juan, Sinforoso, Ignacio, and
Ireneo Clerigo, besides himself, Vildo Patingo, Pablo Zamora, and Venancio
Sadsad, and that Simeon Ocuang (Briones) was the one who wounded him, the
witness. He says that Simeon Briones first cut him on the left arm near the
elbow and the blow that cut the arm also cut his bones, and he received two
other wounds before he made his escape; that Gaudencio Madera wounded Pablo
Zamora and Venancio Sadsad; and Narciso Jallores wounded Sinforoso Clerigo and
his two sons Ignacio and Juan, but that he does not know who wounded Ireneo
Clerigo; that Vicente Patriarca wounded Vildo Patingo, and that Patingo said to
Patriarca: “Como, Manoy Vicente, tu vas a ser el mismo que me vas a herir?”
(Why! Manoy Vicente, are you yourself going to wound me?) The witness testifies
that after he was wounded he made his escape and hid behind the house of Ventura
de Luna; that he intended going into the house of Ventura but that the robbers
went there and he heard the groans of Ventura de Luna when he was wounded by
Gaudencio Madera, and he heard Ventura say, “Dios mio, perdonenme ya Vds. porque
no tengo culpa, no les he faltado a Vds. y me estan hiriendo!” (For God’s sake,
spare me! I am not to blame, I haven’t done anything to you, and you are
wounding me!); that all the parties were armed; that after the attack and after
the robbers had left, he went into the house of Ventura and there spent the
night.

The next witness is Ignacio Padis; 38 years old; laborer. He testifies he
knew Pablo Zamora and Ventura de Luna; that on the 6th of April, 1901, he went
to the house of Ventura de Luna for the purpose of buying some cigarettes,
coming from his own house which is distant from the place; that when he neared
the house of Ventura de Luna the place was assaulted; that he knew they were
“asaltantes” because they wounded him with their bolos. Witness shows one wound
in the middle of his breast which evidently had cut deep into the bone; the
wound is about 6 inches long. He has another wound on the top of the right
shoulder about 2 inches long. Both wounds must have been very severe ones. He
says Gaudencio Madera was the man who wounded him and he identifies audencio
Madera in court. He says he saw only three robbers, Vicente Patriarca, Narciso
Jallores, and Gaudencio Madera; that he did not see the robbers at all until
they assaulted him; that he does not know why they wounded him, because he
simply said “buenas noches.” When he received the wounds he escaped into the
“nipales” a distance of about 40 brazas from the house of Ventura; that when he
was wounded Ventura de Luna was in front of Gaudencio Madera and that the latter
wounded Ventura. It was some time after 7 o’clock when the occurrence took
place; that there was a moon and the night was very clear. He testifies he has
known Narciso Jallores, Vicente Patriarca, and Gaudencio Madera for a number of
years; that he made a declaration before the justice of the peace of Tigaon on
the 11th of January of this year, and also one before the justice of the peace
of Goa on the following day, and that he made this second declaration because he
had not finished his declaration before the justice of the peace of Tigaon; that
he was taken to the town of San Jose by the Americans after the killing, but
that he was not asked anything about the occurrence because he was “muy mal de
salud” (in very bad health); that he left San Jose before he was fully cured and
stayed in Tigaon.

The next witness called is Dominga Pareja, widow of Ventura de Luna. She says
she is 80 years of age and lives in Tigaon. She is an old woman, but her mind
appears clear.

She testifies that on the 6th of April, 1901, she was in Sabang Bunga,
municipio of Tigaon; that she did not have a house there but that she was
staying in a house and living with her husband Ventura de Luna; that she does
not know in what year her husband was killed because she is an old woman and
much time has passed since the occurrence; that she remembers that her husband
was killed by Gaudencio Madera who gave her husband a “tajo” (bolo thrust); that
she knows Gaudencio Madera (whom she identifies in the court room); that her
husband went out to see who was calling him, and as she heard him cry out, she
went out and the robbers had already wounded him once; that she did not see her
husband receive the first wound but she saw him given a bolo stroke in the right
leg and a wound on the right shoulder just above the lung; that after they had
killed her husband they made her go down stairs, then they tied her and took her
back into the house and then proceeded to take their clothing. She says the
value of the clothing taken was about P30 as she was not rich, and that the
robbers also took P10 in money; that they did not stay long in her house but
they stayed long enough to eat up her rice. She states her house was 20 meters
distant from the house of Pablo Zamora; that after the robbers left she shouted
for help but none came; that she did not give an account of the occurrence to
the authorities because she was. very weak and there was nothing she could do;
that she knows Gaudencio Madera because he had been “teniente” of the “sitio of
Moriones” in the Spanish times and that he had sometimes questioned them when
they were carrying rice; that she heard Ignacio Padis whistling and heard the
robbers ask him where he was going and he said he was coming to buy some
cigarettes, and then they gave him bolo cuts and he escaped; that she does not
know who cut Ignacio Padis because she was inside the house and he was in front
of her house; that she heard no noise in the house of Pablo Zamora, because she
is half deaf; that there were at that time revolutionary bands, and that this
band was such a one; that Gaudencio Madera was a revolutionary soldier and that
he was chased by the Americans.

Antonio Dinido, a “montes” 28 years old, is the next witness for the
prosecution. He is called an “Igorrote” part of the time and sometimes he is
mentioned as a “Negrito,” but he is neither one nor the other. He is simply a
baptized wild-tribe man.

It was attempted in his cross-examination to show that he was not 28 years of
age and that he was born in 1888. From his appearance the court considers that
he is at least 28 years of age. The court informed the attorneys for the defense
that if they wished they could procure his certificate of baptism and present
the same. However, it was not put in. If this witness had been born in 1888 he
would have been only 13 years of age at the time this crime was committed in
1901.

He testifies he is a “montes;” that he does not know the sitio of Sabang
Bunga because he did not grow up in that locality; but that he has heard the
name; that he did not know Pablo Zamora nor Ventura de Luna because he did know
the “gente” in that locality. He was then asked if he knew the prisoners; he
said “yes” and identified each one of them; he says he accompanied them when
they did the killing; that they killed seven persons. Asked if they wounded
them, he says “no, they killed them;” that he knows this because he accompanied
them when they did it; he insists that there were seven people killed. He says
that Gaudencio Madera, Capitan Narciso Jallores, and Vicente Patriarca passed by
the “sitio” of Moriones and Gaudencio Madera told him to follow them. He asked
where they were going and the reply was simply to follow them; that he was
afraid and he went. When they got to the “sitio” of Sabang Bunga they assaulted
two houses, tied the persons and carried them down below and wounded them. He
says they killed seven, but he does not know their names. Asked when the
occurrence took place, he replied it occurred when the Americans came; he says
they did not give him any of the spoils; that after the assault they went away;
that he returned to Moriones; that there were 19 in the assaulting party—3 from
the town, the rest of them being Igorrotes. Those who were not Igorrotes were
Gaudencio Madera, Narciso Jallores, and Vicente Patriarca. He says he has no
enmity against any of the accused. Asked on cross examination if he knew why
Simeon Briones (alias Ocuang) was accused and not himself, he replied that it
was because Briones had done some of the killing and he had not.

He states he heard about the arrest of the parties and he went to inform
Lieutenant Yance of the Constabulary at Goa of what he knew of the affair; that
he did not tell him before this because the crime had not been discovered; that
he knows the names of his other companions and that he gave these names to
Lieutenant Yance when he went and told what he knew of the occurrence; that he
was told he was 28 years old by his “padrino.” He says further that there were
bands of “insurrectos” in those times, and that this band was such a one; that
Gaudencio Madera was the “teniente” of the band and “Capitan Narciso” was the
“comandante,” but that he does not know what office Vicente Patriarca held; that
he, witness, was not a soldier as he only carried a short knife and that he was
only small then; he does not know how old he was, but he was very small; that he
was not a muchacho, nor was he a soldier, he was simply told to follow them, and
that they got him from the sitio of Moriones, within the jurisdiction of Pili;
that nobody told him the accused had been carried to Nueva Caceres; he knew it
simply because of “noticias;” that he did not talk with anyone about the case
before he was called to testify. He was then asked if he was a muchacho for
Juliana Sape and Sotera Zamora, and he denied ever having been their muchacho;
that he did not know them nor had he ever entered their house; that nobody sent
to call him to testify before the court, but that he came of his own volition;
that he came to Tigaon at 5 o’clock on the afternoon of the day preceding the
trial; that he slept below the court, in the “tribunal,” having been told to go
there to sleep by Lieutenant Yance; that nobody told him he was to testify but
that he knew he was to testify before he left Moriones though he had not
received any subpoena, Benita Saludo, 60 years of age, was the next witness
called. She states that her occupation in the year 1901 was that of “lavandera”
and that she was called upon by Gaudencio Madera to wash a coat of his which was
covered with
blood; and that this was on Easter Sunday in the year 1901.

It is difficult to find a case where the culpability of the defendants is
more clearly proved, if we accept the declarations of the witnesses for the
prosecution, than the present. The attorney for the appellants calls our
attention to many circumstances which, under ordinary conditions would discredit
the veracity of some of the witnesses for the prosecution. For example, the
crime was committed on the night of the 6th of April, 1901, and the complaint
was not presented until the month of January, 1913. Practically all of the
witnesses for the prosecution were present and saw the defendants and recognized
them on the night when the alleged crime was committed. Some of them admit that
they reported to the authorities the next morning the fact that the crime
described in the complaint had been committed. At that time they failed to give
the authorities the names of the perpetrators. They now explain why they did not
give the names of the perpetrators of the crime to the authorities. They say
that public order in the community where they lived was very much disturbed by
the existence of a revolution. That the American army had just arrived in the
locality. That they were ignorant and were just as much afraid of the American
soldiers as they were of the “malhechores.” And, furthermore, they now say that
the defendants threatened to pursue and to kill them, if they divulged their
names to the authorities. Some of the witnesses for the prosecution evidently
believed that the authorities would be able to ascertain who the defendants were
without their giving their names. The attorney for the appellants also
criticizes the prosecution for the long delay between the time of the commission
of the offense and the actual presentation of the complaint. That, of course,
under ordinary circumstances, would be suspicious. Article 131 of the Penal
Code, however, provides that a criminal action, such as the present, may be
commenced within any time within a period of twenty years. The fact that the
prosecution did not commence the action earlier, while it is suspicious,
nevertheless is not conclusive that the facts stated in the complaint are not
true. The attorney for the appellants further calls our attention to the fact
that even during the preliminary examination, the declaration of some of the
witnesses was different before the justice of the peace from their declaration
in the Court of First Instance. There are many circumstances which tend to show
that the preliminary examination was not conducted with that degree of
impartiality which should characterize such proceedings. Furthermore, two of the
witnesses swore positively that the justice of the peace refused to hear them
upon certain matters upon which they desired to declare. One of the witnesses
who had been refused the right to make a full, free, and open statement before
the justice of the peace, went before another authority and completed his
statement. The mere fact, however, that a witness declares to certain facts
during a preliminary examination and to another set of facts upon the trial of
the cause in the Court of First Instance, does not necessarily discredit his
testimony nor destroy it, if such contradictions are satisfactorily explained.
(U. S. vs. Magtibay, 17 Phil. Rep., 417.) In the present case we are not
inclined to permit the contradictions made by some of the witnesses in their
declarations before the justice of the peace and in the Court of First Instance
to discredit their testimony because, in our opinion, such contradictions were
fully explained by the witnesses themselves, during their examination at the
trial of the cause.

There were many witnesses presented by the defense, some of whom were more or
less interested in the outcome of the action, whose declarations tend to
exculpate the defendants. The lower court, however, after having seen and heard
them and weighing their testimony with that of the testimony offered by the
prosecution, found that the declarations of the witnesses for the prosecution
were to be believed rather than the declarations of the witnesses for the
defense. While as we said above, the fact that some of the witnesses for the
prosecution who were present at the time and place where the crime was
committed, on the very next morning failed to give the names of the perpetrators
to the authorities might, under other circumstances discredit their
declarations, yet, nevertheless, considering all of the facts and circumstances
surrounding the commission of the present crime, together with the fact that an
insurrection existed in the locality, and also the fact that their testimony
given during the trial of the present cause is corroborated in practically all
of the details by the declarations of other witnesses, we find no reason now for
not accepting their testimony as true.

There were many aggravating circumstances connected with the commission of
the crime. The crime was committed at nighttime, by a band composed of from
twenty to thirty men. All of the facts surrounding the commission of the crime
indicate that the defendants selected the nighttime for the purpose of more
effectually committing their crime. The crime was committed in the house of the
offended persons. Before the four persons described in the complaint were
killed, they were manacled and were killed while they were manacled. The
defendants not only committed the crime of assassination with the qualifying
circumstance of alevosia, together with the aggravating circumstances
of nocturnity and morada, but they also committed the crime of robbery,
making them clearly guilty of the crime of assassination with robbery. They
should, therefore, be punished in accordance with the provisions of paragraph 1
of article 503,in relation with article 502 of the Penal Code. The lower court
gave the defendants the benefit of article 11 of the Penal Code, compensating
all of the aggravating circumstances by said article. The Solicitor-General, in
a very carefully prepared brief, undertakes to demonstrate that the defendants,
by reason of their character and intelligence, are not entitled to the benefit
of said article 11, as amended by Act No. 2142. We are very much inclined to
agree with this conclusion of the Solicitor-General.

Therefore, in view of the foregoing facts, the sentence of the lower court
must be modified, and considering the aggravating circumstances above mentioned,
the said defendants Gaudencio Madera, Narciso Jallores and Vicente Patriarca
must be sentenced in the maximum degree of the penalty provided for in paragraph
1 of article 503 of the Penal Code, or with the penalty of death, and each of
them is hereby condemned jointly and severally to pay to the heirs of Pablo
Zamora the sum of Pl,000, and to indemnify, jointly and severally, the heirs of
Ventura de Luna in the sum of P1,000; to indemnify, jointly and severally, the
heirs of each of the deceased Vildo Patingo, Sinforoso Clerigo, Juan Clerigo,
and Ignacio Clerigo in the sum of P1,000, and that they return to the heirs of
Pablo Zamora the. sum of P250, the value of the clothes and money robbed from
him; that they also return to the heirs of Ventura de Luna the sum of P25, the
value of the clothes robbed from him, and each to pay one-fourth part of the
costs.

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

---

DISSENTING

CARSON, J., with whom concurs

TRENT, J.

I agree with Justice Moreland that under all the circumstances of this case
the penalty imposed by the trial court should not be disturbed.

---

DISSENTING

MORELAND, J.

The judgment appealed from should be affirmed without any
modification.