This is an appeal taken by Ambrosio and Pedro Bordador from the judgment sentencing them to cadena perpetua plus indemnity of P1,000 and the costs of the suit, under a charge of murder for the death of Pedro Sinsay, which took place in the barrio of Buenavista of the municipality of General Trias, Province of Cavite, on the night of April 21, 1935. In support of their appeal, they allege that the lower court erred: (1) In accepting their statements Exhibits B and C  as evidence against them; (2)  in giving credit to  the testimony of the  witnesses Lieutenant Lamberto T. Javalera, Emilia Topacio de Sinsay and Francisca Sinsay; and (3) in finding them both guilty of the crime of murder and sentencing them to cadena perpetua with the corresponding accessory penalties, to indemnify jointly and severally the heirs of the deceased Pedro Sinsay in  the  sum of P1,000, and to pay the costs of the suit.

A month  prior to his  death,  Pedro Sinsay desiring to help his sister Francisca Sinsay who had lost a carabao and its young, went to the house of Ambrosio Bordador, who was  suspected of  being the author of the theft of said animals, to ask the  latter for  them  and  demand  the return thereof to their owner.   If we are to give credit to the hearsay evidence of record, which was not objected to by  the defense, Pedro Sinsay and Ambrosio Bordador quarreled during the interview that  the former provoked a fight with the  latter.   Francisca  Sinsay's  animals  were   never seen again  after their disappearance;  and on  the night of April 21, 1935 (Sunday), Pedro Sinsay who went to his land situated in the barrio of Buenavista for the purpose of irrigating it did not return home alive as his body, with wounds three of  which were necessarily mortal and two more or less serious in character, was found on  the following day, the  head  half-submerged  in a ditch.   After the necessary investigation by the agents of the authority and on the strength of the suspicions of Francisca Sinsay who believed that Ambrosio Bordador,  Amado Villanueva and Pedro  Bordador might have been the authors of her brother Pedro's death, said agents arrested the three for questioning.  When Amado Villanueva  was questioned he stated in plain language  that  at about 4 o'clock in the afternoon of April 21, 1935, Ambrosio Bordador, his  compadre, invited him to help the latter kill Pedro Sinsay for having accused Bordador of stealing  Sinsay's  carabao. Upon being questioned, Ambrosio Bordador and Pedro Bordador  each  made the revelations and statements contained in Exhibits B and C, separately, on different occasions and before different officials.

In Exhibit B, Ambrosio  Bordador admitted having killed Pedro  Sinsay with the help of Amado Villanueva not mentioning his brother Pedro, both  having used therefor a firearm called paltic and a bolo, stating furthermore that the bolo was his and that with it he inflicted the incised wounds found on the body of the deceased.  Pedro Bordador in turn admitted, as stated in Exhibit C, having participated in the  aggression on Pedro Sinsay, saying that Amado Villanueva fired two shots at said deceased with the  paltic or firearm  which  Villanueva  carried;  that  he  and his brother Ambrosio  later attacked  the  deceased with their respective bolos until the  latter  died, and once dead, the three of them carried  his body and threw it into a ditch.  When the two brothers were asked whether they could indicate  the place where they  committed the aggression, each of them independently of the other so did. Ambrosio Bordador,  then accompanied by the  provincial commander of the constabulary in Cavite, two officers of said force, some municipal policemen and the barrio lieutenant, was the first to indicate the scene  of the crime and to reenact  it.  He indicated the places where  they located themselves to commit the crime and  where they later threw the body, and in fact  a  bolo  and bloodstains were  found  there.   The place where he said they had thrown the body proved to be the same from which days before said body was picked up by the authorities and their  agents.  This took place about April 27, 1935.

At a later date, Pedro Bordador, urged to indicate to the authorities the place where,  according to his confession, his crime was perpetrated, so did in the same manner as his brother Ambrosio.  On this point there are of record the following passages:
                                                                                                                                                                                                    

"Q.	When you went to the scene of the crime with Am- brosio Bordador, is fhat place within the municipality o^ General Trias? (Lieutenant Javalera testifying). A. Yes, sir.
"Q.	Did Amado Villanueva and Pedro Bordador also go with you? A. We have made another re-enactment when Pedro Bordador went with us.
"Q.	In the same manner? A. Yes, sir." (T. s. n., p. 13.)
*     *      *     *    *    *       *
"Q.	When you conducted the investigation with Ambrosio Bordador and later with Pedro Bordador, you say that they indicated the places where the deceased was shot? A. Yes, sir.
"Q.	Did you ask Ambrosio Bordador who fired at the deceased? A. Yes, sir.
"Q.	What did Ambrosio Bordador say? A. He said that it was Amado Villanueva who fired.
"Q.	Did he also say that Pedro Bordador participated? A. Yes, sir.
"Q.	Did Pedro and Ambrosio Bordador state what weap- on they used? A. Yes, sir.
"Q.	What weapon? A. According to Ambrosio, when Amado Villanueva fired at the deceased he also went to slash the latter." (Page 14.)
*     *      *     *    *    *       *
"Court:
"Q.	From your said two visits to the barrio of San Buenavista, did they also indicate the participation which Pedro Bordador might have had in this case? A. According to Pedro Bordador he was accompanied by Axnado Villanueva and he also made the same statement as that of Ambrosio Bordador; instead of saying that his companion was Am- brosio Bordador he stated that it was Amado Villanueva.
"Q.	According to your investigation, who took hold of the body and dragged or threw it into a ditch? A. According to my investigation, it was the two brothers and they admitted it during the ree'nactment of the crime, which ree'nactment was done separately by them." (Page 15.)
*     *      *     *    *    *       *
"Fiscal (Lieutenant Devera testifying):
"Q.	Did you not take Pedro Bordador there to indicate the place? A. It was Lieutenant Javalera who accompanied Pedro Bordador when he went to re-enact the crime, and I spoke to Pedro Bordador.
"Q.	What did Pedro Bordador tell you? A. Pedro Bordador admitted that it was he who killed the deceased, but with the help of Amado Villanueva." (Page 48.)

Upon knowing the above-stated facts, the chief of police of the municipality of General Trias  filed the  complaint which gave rise to this case in the justice of the peace court, and the appellants, upon being arraigned by the justice of the peace, admitted their crime and pleaded guilty.  Amado Villanueva who was also included in the complaint  did not want to plead guilty.  After the case had been forwarded to the Court of First Instance of Cavite, it was  dismissed with respect to Amado Villanueva upon motion of the fiscal who  stated that there was not sufficient evidence  against said  individual.

The defense of the accused-appellants consisted in a general  denial, an alibi and in having been maltreated by the constabulary,  saying  that while they  were detained they were struck with the butts of guns, trampled upon on the stomach and slapped by some soldiers, insinuating thereby that if they made the statements contained in Exhibits B and C, it was because of said maltreatments.  The truth, however, is that Pedro Bordador did not make the statement Exhibit C in the presence of any constabulary  soldier, as it was made by him before the chief of police of the municipality of General Trias while he was  detained in the jail of said municipality.  It is  also true that Ambrosio Bordador was not investigated  by any  constabulary  soldier but by Lieutenant Lamberto T. Javalera himself; and the latter conducted the  investigation  taking  good care that his questions and the answers given him by Ambrosio Bordador were typewritten by a soldier who acted as his typist. Furthermore,  when  both appellants appeared before the justices of the peace in whose  presence they signed the documents in  question, they ratified them in all respects without any objection or the  least indication that they had not made the revelations  and statements contained therein. Still further, when they  were arraigned in the justice of the peace  court on May 2, 1936, or several days thereafter they had  signed said documents  Exhibits  B  and C, they waived the preliminary investigation, whereupon the case had  to be forwarded to the Court of First  Instance of Cavite.

The appellants' imputations to the constabulary soldiers are  absolutely unfounded, first, because  if it were true that they  were maltreated said maltreatments would have left some mark on their bodies, and it does  not appear that they had called the court's attention to any mark that may be considered  a trace thereof; and second, because their testimony is not corroborated and the other evidence shows that responsible constabulary officers and other government officials directly  intervened  both  when their statements contained  in Exhibits B and  C were taken and during the re-enactment of the crime made by each of them, and under such circumstances it is unbelievable that irregularities have been  or  could have  been committed because  said persons would not have so  permitted.  Furthermore, if the constabulary soldiers or some of their officers had  concocted the statements contained  in  Exhibits  B apd  C,  the natural thing is that the salient facts would coincide,  which is not the case  herein because the intention of said  two brothers not to mutually implicate each other is  clearly inferable from each of said documents.  But this is  not all.   After the appellants had made the statements contained in said two Exhibits (B and C)  before Lieutenant Javalera and before the chief of  police of the municipality of  General  Trias, respectively, they were brought to different justices  of the peace to ratify them which they did after they had been carefully informed of the contents thereof; and at the time of the preliminary investigation both waived said proceeding by pleading guilty.

Neither the testimony of Lieutenant  Lamberto T.  Javalera  nor  that of Emilia Topacio  de Sinsay and Francisca Sinsay can be  doubted as regards the manner of taking Ambrosio Bordador's statements, the two re-enactments of the crime made by  the appellants and the disappearance of the two carabaos  of said Francisca Sinsay, because aside from the fact  that they have  been  entirely corroborated they have not been contradicted by the defense except through  the testimony of the appellants.

The lower court held that the crime committed was murder with the qualifying  circumstance  of treachery.  We do not believe such circumstance has been established, particularly if we take into consideration the fact that all the injuries and wounds found on Pedro Sinsay's body were inflicted  from the front.  Furthermore, the circumstances modifying criminal liability as well as those  qualifying a crime or are inherent therein must be established as clearly as the crime itself; they cannot be held to be present from mere conclusions or  inferences.   Much  less can it be said that the aggravating or qualifying circumstance of evident premeditation has been  established because, leaving aside Amado Villanueva's testimony which bears all the  tokens of a fable, except if we are to believe him a coauthor  of this crime, there is  no direct  evidence showing the existence of said circumstance.  It cannot be inferred from the simple fact that there was enmity between Ambrosio Bordador and Pedro Sinsay.

In view  of the foregoing considerations, we are  of  the opinion and so  hold that  the alleged errors I and  II  assigned by the appellants  are unfounded, and that the crime committed  by them is simple homicide without any circumstance  modifying criminal liability.

Wherefore, modifying the  appealed judgment, we find the appellants guilty of the crime of homicide, and pursuant to the provisions of the Indeterminate  Sentence Law sentence them to the penalty of from eight years of prision mayor to fourteen years, eight months and one day of reclusion temporal, affirming said judgment in all other respects, with costs to the appellants.  So ordered.

Avanceña, C. J., Villa-Real, Abad Santos, Imperial, Recto, and Laurel, JJ., concur.