This is an appeal taken  by  Fidel Arrojo, Mamerto  de Leon, Catalino Matula, Silvino Bulahan, Susano Gualdrapa and  Felipe  Gualdrapa from a  judgment of the  Court  of First Instance  of Occidental Negros  convicting them  of the crime of murder as principals, the first by  induction, and  the  second by direct participation,  and sentencing each of them to undergo life imprisonment; and Catalino Matula, Silvino  Bulahan, Susano Gualdrapa, Felipe Gualdrapa and Jose  Carbonel, of the crime of murder, as accomplices, and  sentencing each of them to the penalty of twelve years and one day  reclusion temporal, all of them to indemnify jointly and  severally the heirs of the deceased, Eliseo Olmedo, and  to pay the costs.

Jose Carbonel has not appealed  from the judgment, so that it has  now become final as to him.

To substantiate their appeal, the appellants assign the following supposed errors as committed by the trial court, to wit:  (1)  The conviction of the herein accused, Fidel Arrojo and  Mamerto de Leon,  as principals, and Catalino Matula, Silvino  Bulahan, Susano Gualdrapa, Felipe Gualdrapa and Jose Carbonel, as accomplices, instead of acquitting them of the crime charged  in the information upon reasonable doubt;  (2) its failure to consider the principal and irreconcilable contradictions  of the testimony of the witnesses for the prosecution  which raise reasonable doubt in  favor  of  the  accused; (3) the holding that the accused were identified, when the  evidence does not duly establish  their identity; and (4) its failure to hold that Jose Carbonel,  one of the herein accused, is the only author of the murder  of Eliseo  Olmedo, as shown  by the confession  of the said Jose  Carbonel made in open court that he had killed Eliseo Olmedo in self-defense.

The facts proven at the trial beyond a reasonable doubt are as follows:  On the date of the commission of the crime there existed in the municipality of Hog, Province of Occidental Negros,  two rival societies, enemy to each other, known as Mainawaon and Kusug Sang Imol, respectively. Eliseo Olmedo was a member of the Mainawaon and Jose Carbonel, Mamerto de Leon,  Fidel Arrojo, Catalino Matula, Silvino Bulahan, Susano Gualdrapa and Felipe Gualdrapa, were members of the Kusug  Sang Imol.  Four days before the crime,  Fidel Arrojo was stopped on his way and then chased by four Mainawaons who tried to catch him, but he succeeded in escaping.  In the month of October, Fidel Arrojo went to the club of the  Kusug Sang Imol and  told the vice-president, Ramon  Larracas, and the secretary, Francisco Gemora, both of the  said club, that the  Mainawaons of  the barrio of Gosy,  headed by Eliseo  Olmedo, were  after  him.   Upon hearing such  notice, Ramon  Larracas struck the  table with his fist and said: "Why did you  not kill him?  Kill  him."  Francisco  Gemora,  also striking the table  with his  fist, seconded  the proposition, saying: "You try to kill him; you must kill  him, because if you kill him  there, where there are many  Mainawaons, they will  become afraid,  and if you kill  him, do not be afraid because  in Bacolod there are good lawyers.  I am a procurador here in Bacolod and our club has a good lawyer in Bacolod."  After the said interview, on the morning of December 26, 1924,  Fidel Arrojo was telling everybody the following: "Tonight, I am  going to kill three  Mainawaons; if not  F.  Bello, then Juan Catalan; if not Juan Catalan, then Eliseo Olmedo,"   On  the afternoon of the. same day, Eliseo Olmedo, Mamerto de Leon, Fidel Arrojo, Jose Carbonel, Catalino  Matula, Silvino Bulahan, Susano Gualdrapa, Felipe Gualdrapa, Santiago Helboligaya, Andres de Leon and Vicente Genito met in the house of one Basilio Salinas where  there was a little celebration of the birthday of one of the children of  the owner of the house. During their stay in the said house and while drinking tuba and  eating  some viands, Fidel Arrojo and his  co-accused were seen talking  in a low voice and so behaving as to arouse the  suspicion of the other guests that something wrong was being planned.  Fidel Arrojo was seen looking intently at Eliseo Olmedo from head to foot.  When Andres de Leon  asked  him why  he looked at Eliseo Olmedo in such a manner, Fidel Arrojo whispered  to him in the ear  "You shut up, a lightning will strike  that fellow, I am going to kill him."  When the departure of the guests began,  Mamerto de Leon and  Fidel Arrojo were the first to leave, followed by Vicente  Genito and  Santiago Helboligaya.  Afterwards Eliseo Olmedo  left the  house accompanied by Catalino Matula,  Jose Carbonel, Felipe Gualdrapa, Susano Gualdrapa and Silvino Bulahan.  When they were about 30  meters  from the house  of Basilio Salinas, the voice of Fidel Arrojo was heard, saying  "Go ahead, strike him now."  Catalino Matula then placed his right hand upon the shoulder of Eliseo Olmedo, whereupon a fight ensued between the two.  Silvino Bulahan, Susano Gualdrapa,  Mamerto de Leon  and Felipe Gualdrapa immediately also seized Eliseo Olmedo, two upon each arm, pulling his two arms crosswise; two holding both legs; one holding his waist and Mamerto de Leon holding his nape with his  left hand.  When Eliseo  Olmedo had become weakened, his assailants took of his shirt and lowered his pantaloons until the knees.  On that instant the voice of Fidel Arrojo was again heard saying "strike him now with the bolo."   Upon hearing this, in the twinkling  of an eye everybody let  Eliseo Olmedo and Mamerto de Leon strike him  with his bolo on the nape and everybody run away. The witness Vicente Genito who saw with Andres de Leon all of  this  from behind  some shrubbery,  attempted  to interfere, but  Mamerto de Leon met him and said "You also  want to help him?," at the same time  giving him a bolo  blow which  hit him on the  right hand, inflicting a wound 2 inches long.  When the body of Eliseo Olmedo was  examined by Dr. Fortunato Angeles  on  December 28, 1924, the following  wounds and  contusions were found: One  on the base of the cranium, 15 inches long by 1 inch wide and 1½ inches deep, which ran from the posterior part of the right ear downward  almost to the  back part  of the lobe of the left ear cutting the scalp, the  occipital bone and the hard membrane which covers the brains, and penetrating  to the arteries and  the cerebellum, this wound is mortal of necessity; another wound on  the left shoulder 1½ inches long, having the same  direction  as the former one apparently inflicted by the same bolo  blow; one ecchymosis about 3 inches in diameter  on the back; another  on the buttock one upon each calf and one on each omoplate.

The defense tried to prove that the accused Mamerto  de Leon and Fidel Arrojo, upon leaving the house of Basilio Salinas,  went  directly to  their respective homes and did not know of what had happened  until  the following day.  As to the other defendants, they  attempted to prove that when they had walked some distance from the house  of Basilio Salinas, Eliseo Olmedo turned to the accused Catalino  Matula,  Felipe Gualdrapa, Jose Carbonel and Susano Gualdrapa and  challenged them, saying that if they, the Kusug Sang Imol people, were really brave, they could aline before him.  Jose Carbonel, thinking that he was the person alluded  to, approached the deceased and the latter pushed and struck him with a dagger which did not hit him but Vicente Genito.  Then Eliseo Olmedo, with a penknife, attacked Catalino Matula.  Jose Carbonel, upon seeing this,  struck him with a bolo on the nape, running away afterwards. As to the defendants Silvino  Bulahan and Susano Gualdrapa, the defense tried to prove that the said accused remained in the house and did not leave until later.

The evidence  for the  prosecution consists in the testimony of Vicente Genito and of Santiago Helboligaya who witnessed the event.  Andres de Leon, being a member of Kusug Sang Imol, was included in the complaint, but later excluded to be used as state's witness, for the purpose of proving the motive of the crime and also its commission by the defendants.  The testimony of the witnesses for the prosecution is corroborated by the circumstances of the case and  by the marks of violence that were found  upon the body of the deceased.  The wound on the nape shows that he was killed  by bolo blows.  The ecchymoses on the arm, on the back, on the buttocks and on the calves corroborate the testimony of the witnesses that the deceased was held by the defendants in those parts of the body.  As to the identity of the  defendants there cannot be the slightest doubt, because they were seen by persons who knew them very well and who were with them at the time and under such circumstances that it was not possible to make a mistake about their identity.  The slight contradictions found in the testimony of the witnesses for the prosecution, far from denoting that they did  not tell the truth, prove that each of them testified  only as to that  which he perceived subjectively and objectively.  It is a phenomenon now no longer a matter of speculation, but a  psychological truth, that two persons seeing the  same  accident or act do  not perceive the details in the same manner nor receive  the same impression.  Experience has shown that  there  can only be absolute coincidence  in the details of observation of the same accident or act by two or  more persons when there has been a previous concert.

The defense of alibi, as regards the defendants  Fidel Arrojo, Mamerto de Leon, Silvino Bulahan and Susano Gualdrapa, cannot overcome the conclusive evidence of the prosecution as to their  identity and participation in the crime.  As to the other accused neither is the evidence that Eliseo Olmedo provoked the fight, compelling Jose Carbonel to defend his person and his companions, meritorious since, aside from the fact that all the witnesses for the defense are interested persons and partial witnesses on account of their natural tendency to protect themselves, the circumstances of the case  do not corroborate their testimony which was contradicted by the witnesses for the prosecution who had witnessed the event.

Having found beyond all reasonable doubt that all of the herein accused have cooperated in killing  Eliseo Olmedo, we  shall now proceed to consider the nature of the  crime committed and the responsibility of each and everyone of them.

The advices and assurances given to Fidel Arrojo by the vice-president and secretary of the Kusug Sang Imol of Hog; the statements  made by him on the following day that he would kill three Afainawaons, among them, the deceased Eliseo Olmedo; the secret conversations that took place in the lower  part of the house of Basilio Salinas in the  afternoon  of December 26,  1924; the cry  of "Go ahead,  strike him now" suddenly  made by Fidel Arrojo when he  got about 30 meters away from the  house of Basilio Salinas; the instantaneous action  of Catalino Matula  in holding Eliseo Olmedo  by  the right shoulder  and the cooperation, also instantaneous, given by the  accused Mamerto de Leon, Silvino  Bulahan, Felipe Gualdrapa, Jose Carbonel and  Susano Gualdrapa, holding the said Eliseo Olmedo in different parts of the body;  the second cry of Fidel Arrojo of "strike him now with the bolo;" the instantaneous blow struck by Mamerto de Leon  on the nape that caused his death, all of this  shows that in the afternoon of the day when  the crime was committed, the accused, headed by Fidel Arrojo, conspired  and agreed to kill Eliseo Olmedo, and  united for one single purpose, each one having his respective part in the  consummation of the crime, assaulted said Eliseo Olmedo, inflicting  several wounds upon him, one of which was mortal  of  necessity and as  a result of  which he died on the spot.   The accused  Catalino Matula,  Silvino Bulahan, Susano Gualdrapa and Felipe Gualdrapa cannot  be considered as mere accomplices, because  if they had not participated in the conspiracy to kill Eliseo Olmedo, Fidel Arrojo would not have shouted "strike him now  with the bolo," and upon hearing it, they would have prevented Mamerto de Leon from executing the order.   Not only did they not do anything of the  kind giving it to understand  by their  silence  that they  approved  of  the act but  they stripped Eliseo Olmedo of his shirt, and would have done the same with his pantaloons, that were already lowered up to the knees, if the order to kill him had not been given prematurely.   " *  *  *   If two persons pursue  by their acts the same  object often by the same means, one performing one part  of the act and  the other another part of the act, so as to complete it with a view to the attaining of the object which  they  are pursuing, this will be  sufficient  to constitute a conspiracy.  * * *  It is not essential  that each conspirator shall take part in every act, or that  he shall know the exact  part to be performed by the other conspirators in execution  of the conspiracy.  Conspiracy implies concert of  design  and not  participation  in every detail  of execution.   Nor is it necessary that the plan  of xi  combination shall embrace in  detail in its early stages the various means  by which it is to be executed, as  it is sufficient that there is a general plan to accomplish the result sought by such means as may  from  time to time  be found expedient."  (12 Corpus Juris, p. 545.)   "Generally it is not material that the plan which was carried out differs widely from the original plan, nor will it be required  to show the existence of any previous plan if, from the evidence, it seems clear that there  had been negotiations  to the same end."  (Underbill's Criminal Evidence, page 794, par. 490.)

Direct  proof is not essential to  show conspiracy.  "It need not be shown that the parties actually came together and agreed in express terms to enter in and pursue a common design.  The existence of the assent of minds which is involved in a conspiracy may be, and, from the secrecy of the crime, usually  must be, inferred by the jury from proof of facts and circumstances  which, taken together, apparently indicate that they are merely parts of some complete whole.  If it is proved  that two or more persons aimed by their acts towards the accomplishment of  the same unlawful object,  each doing a part so that their acts, though apparently independent, were in fact connected and  cooperative, indicating a closeness of personal association  and  a concurrence  of sentiment, a conspiracy may be inferred though no  actual meeting among them to concert means is proved.  *  *  *  The details  of  the consipiracy need not be proved.  If a community of purpose among the parties to  do  some criminal act or acts is shown,  it is not  necessary that  the  acts which  are charged, or  of which evidence has been given, were  specifically  contemplated  by them or included  in  the original design.   *   *   *"   (Underbill's Criminal Evidence, page 795, par. 491.)

The facts proven at the trial constitute the  crime of murder,  qualified by the circumstances of known premeditation and alevosia, as regards Fidel Arrojo and of alevosia as regards the other defendants, each and everyone of them being criminally responsible  as  principal,   Fidel  Arrojo by  induction,  and all  the others by  direct participation, the penalty provided by  law being from cadena  temporal in its maximum degree to death.  In the imposition of the penalty there are no generic circumstance  modifying the criminal liability; hence, the penalty must  be imposed in the medium degree, that is cadena perpetua.

In view whereof, the judgment appealed from, as regards Catalino Matula, Silvino  Bulahan,  Felipe Gualdrapa and Susano  Gualdrapa, is reversed,  and  they are held guilty of the crime of murder, as principals by direct participation, and each of them is sentenced to the penalty  of cadena perpetua, said  judgment being  affirmed in  all  other respects, with proportional  costs against  the appellants  and  with credit of one-half of the preventive imprisonment already suffered.  So ordered.

Avanceña, C, J., Street, Malcolm, Vittamor, Ostrand, Romualdez, and Johns, JJ., concur.