This is an appeal from a judgment of the Court of First Instance,  Isabels;  finding  Bueneonsejo Dacio  guilty  of robbery with, homicide upon the person of one Uy Moy, and sentencing him to reclusion perpetua, with the  accessory penalties provided for by law,  to indemnify the heirs of the deceased by Uy, Moy, in the sums of P400 for money taken and of P600 for his death, and to pay the costs.

The evidence submitted by  the  prosecution,  which defendant and  appellant does not deny in  his  confessions' (Exhibit "B" and "D"), shows the following facts:

On and before March 21,  1951,  Uy Moy kept a  store in the barrio of Sinamar, municipality of Sari Mateo, province of Isabela.  At 6 o'clock in the afternoon of that day, as night was approaching, he ordered his helper to  close the doors of the  store.  At that time,  there  were two persons sitting  on benches at one of the doors,  as Uy Moy asked them to move away to allow the closing of the doors. They  requested Uy Moy not to .close the store yet and asked for Sy Hoc Tong (local Chinese wine).. After taking the wine,  he again requested them to go away.  The two strangers, instead of going away approached Uy Moy and his helper.  At this juncture a third man who seemed to be a companion of the. two and  was armed with a carbine, entered the store and ordered one of the two to close the front  door.  The other went to the back door and opened it. All of them were armed with firearms.  They then demanded money from Uy Moy.  Because of fear Uy Moy opened a drawer where he kept his money and allowed one of the trio to grab the contents of the drawer.  l^Jut they were  not  satisfied with this; one of them tied the hands of Uy Moy and ordered him to  proceed outside to be shot, but Uy Moy refused to go out.  Then the one who  took the money ordered the one with the  carbine to shdot at Uy Moy.  The man with the carbine did as he was ordered and fired at Uy Moy, hitting the  latter in the stomach and felling him.  Then the three hurriedly went away.

The companion of Uy Moy at the time was Jao Ka Chiong. After the robbers had closed the front doors, he went aside, and when the shot was fired at Uy Moy he  laid himself flat to avoid being shot and did not get up until the robbers had gone away.  When the robbers were gone, he went to a nearby rice mill and informed the owner, one by the name of Jose, of what had taken place  at  the store.   Both of them  rushed to the side  of Uy Moy who was still alive. Uy Moy told Jao Ka Chiong that he was going to die and that the matter must be  reported to the authorities.   Uy Moy also told his helper that a few  days before that night, a woman by the name of Felisa Marte had gone to the store to make purchases  on credit but as Uy Moy refused to give her credit she warned him that  something might happen . to him in  a few days.  Uy Moy instructed Jao Ka Chiong to tell the authorities' that this woman might be able to throw light on the case.  After receiving these  instructions, Jao Ka Chiong proceeded to Oscariz to call for a doctor. He succeeded in getting one by the name of  Dr. Alejandro, but when Dr. Alejandro and  Jao  Ka,Chiong arrived  at the store in Sinamar, Uy Moy was already lifeless.  The authorities thereafter were informed of  the robbery and they came to the scene of the crime.  The body of Uy  Moy was examined by the physician, Dr. Alejandro, and he found that  a bullet had pierced the  body of Uy  Moy, entering "at the right iliac fossa  about three inches inward from the right anterior superior iliac spine  and emerged in the back at the left gluteal region  about two inches below" the rim of the left iliac crest" (Exhibit "C").  Dr. Alejandro also found that the immediate cause of death was loss of blood  (ex-sanguination)  (Exhibit "C").

The authorities started to investigate and find the three robbers.  A man, whose name had  been withheld for reasons of security, disclosed the  names  of  three  persons, namely, appellant Buenconsejo Daeio, Ceferino Feliciano, and  Carlito Ortega,  so  the three were  charged  with the crime.   At the investigation held on January 24, 1952, Ceferino Feliciano declared that he had  seen the  commission of the crime by two persons, namely, Buenconsejo Dacio  and  Carlito Ortega; that Buenconsejo Dacio was armed  with a carbine, while Carlito was  armed with a pistol ; that he was a driver at that time of Dr. Alejandro and when Jao Ka Chiong went to  Oscariz to the office of Dr. Alejandro to fetch him it was he who drove Dr. Alejandro to Sinamar, but at  that time  Uy Moy was already dead. In view of the statements of Ceferino Feliciano, an amended complaint  was  filed,  this  time charging  the  three Buenconsejo Daeio, Carlito Ortega and Ceferino Feliciano with robbery with homicide.  At the preliminary investigation, Buenconsejo Dacio made a confession  (Exhibit "B"), admitting that he was one of the three who had entered the Chinese store and that the owner  of  the. store was killed;  that he was present at that time and that it was Ceferino Feliciano who shot Uy Moy with a carbine; that he was already getting out  of the store  when  he saw Feliciano firing a shot at the Chinaman, who was already kneeling at the time; that he  passed  out of the store through the back door; that after that the three proceeded to Oscariz where they divided the proceeds of the robbery, each receiving P33 of the loot.

Aside from making the confession, when the information was read to Buenconsejo Daeio and he was  asked whether he pleaded guilty to the charge of. robbery  with homicide, he again pleaded guilty thereto  (Exhibit "E").   Also  on that same day, Buenconsejo Dacio made another confession before  the Constabulary (Exhibit "D") and the same was put in  writing and subscribed to by him  under oath before the justice  of the peace.

After the above proceedings, the case was forwarded to the Court of First Instance where Buenconsejo Dacio again pleaded guilty to the charge of robbery but not to that of robbery with homicide.  So the Judge ordered that a plea of not guilty to the charge of robbery with homicide be  entered in  his  favor.  At the trial the prosecution presented as  witnesses  for the State the provincial commander of the Constabulary,  who testified  on the steps taken to secure the. arrest of the accused and identified the confession  made before  him by appellant Puenconsejo Dacio; three robbers,  and described the details  of  the robbery as. Jao  Ka Chiong, who  identified the  appellant as one of the above  set  forth; and  Dr. Alejandro, who testified on the cause of the death of  Uy Moy.

It was also proved at the trial that  when Bueneonsejo Dacio was already in the custody  of the Constabulary, he and Ceferino Feliciano and some other persons were lined up before Jao Ka Chiong and Jao Ka Chiong was  able to identify the two, namely, Ceferino Feliciano and Buenconsejo Dacio as two  of  the three  who had committed  the robbery in the store of Uy Moy on the night in question.

The appellant was represented by Atty. Melanio Singson, who insisted  on the defendant's plea of  guilty to the crime. of robbery, but as  the  fiscal objected the  court  sustained the fiscal's objection holding that the  plea of not guilty should be entered for the defendant-appellant to the charge of. robbery with homicide.  No testimonial evidence was submitted by appellant, his counsel limiting himself to the presentation of Exhibit  "1", a statement of Jao Ka Chiong.

After the submission of this evidence,  counsel for  the defendant closed his evidence and the ease was submitted for decision.

Counsel for the appellant in this Court does  not .contest the sufficiency of the evidence submitted by the prosecution to prove the guilt of the defendant beyond reasonable doubt. He, however, argues that before making his pleas,  the appellant should have been warned by the presiding judge of the effects of his plea of guilty; that his counsel should have advised  him to take the witness  stand to explain and show that he had no participation in or responsibility for the crime of homicide, although he was to admit participation in or responsibility for. the crime of robbery.

We find no  merit in the argument of counsel de oficio for the defendant-appellant.   As defendant appears to have appeared with counsel  at the time of the trial,  there was no  duty on the part of the judge to warn the defendant-appellant of the seriousness of the charge or advise him to take the witness stand and explain why he should not be responsible for the homicide.  If counsel for the accused in the trial court  did not advise his client  to take  the witness stand to try  to explain away  his supposed participation in the homicide, it must have been because he was aware  of the principle that  all  persons  who enter into a conspiracy to commit the crime of robbery are responsible for the complex crime  of robbery with  homicide, even those who did not actually participate in this killing unless it appears that they endeavored to prevent the homicide. (People iis. Morados, 70 Phil., 558.)   There is no indication that appellant there had ever  endeavored to prevent the homicide.   All his confessions contain no such attempt on. his part to prevent the homicide.   Under these circumstances his liability is not for the crime of robbery alone but  for  that  of  robbery with  homicide.  No  benefit or advantage,  therefore,  could  have been gained by the defendant-appellant in taking  the witness  stand, unless.of course  he intended to change his confessions and fabricate a supposed attempt on his part to prevent the commission of the. homicide.  But even if he had done so and made an attempt to  fabricate, such a defense  at the trial, his testimony would have availed him nothing  as the  fabricated nature of such testimony would become apparent in the face of the confessions that he had made before  the justice of the  peace and the provincial commander (Exhibts "B" and "D").

We,  therefore, find  that. the judgment appealed from is fully justified by the evidence.  We affirm the sentence imposed upon the appellant, except for the indemnity for the money taken, which is hereby reduced from P400 to P100, with costs against the defendant-appellant.

Paras, C. J., Bengzon, Padilla,  Montemayor, Reyes, A., Jugo, Bautista Angelo, Concepcion, Reyes, J. B. L., and Endencia, JJ., concur.