In the  Court of First Instance of  Misamis  Occidental, Rafael  Aranua, Magno Aniana and Vicente  Cuajao  were charged with  the crime  of robbery with  homicide and double  physical injuries in an information wherein it was alleged:

"That on or about the  5th day of July, 1951, in the barrio of San Isidro, municipality of Jimenez, province  of Misamis  Occidental, Philippines, and within  the jurisdiction  of this Honorable Court, the said accused conspiring and confederating together and helping one another in their common purpose to commit robbery, and taking advantage of the darkness of the night, commenced the execution thereof with the accused Rafael Aranua and Magno Aniana entering the house of one. Uldarico Tabil surreptitiously and illegally, while the accused Vicente Cuajao stood guard on the ground, and once inside the said house, the said accused wilfully, unlawfully, feloniously and treacherously,  and with  abuse of superior  strength,  shot the  .eleven-year old child Priscila Tabil through the head with a caliber 22 pistol, killing her instantaneously; then, and in the same manner,. shot  Uldarico  Tabil  and Divina  Ayeta  with the same firearm, indicting on the former, and likewise  on the latter, a  gunshot thru and thru wound at  the chest, which injury required medical attendance for both Uldarico Tabil and Divina Ayeta for a period of more than  30 but less than 90 days,  and incapacitated both  victims from performing their customary labor for  the same period  of time; and that there and then, immediately after the occupants  of the aforementioned house had been, either shot or helplessly terrorized in pursuance  of said conspiracy, the said accused willfully, unlawfully and feloniously, and' with intent of  gain and against  the consent of the owner  thereof,  took and  carried away  the  following  personal properties, to wit:

                 "One (1)  suitcase containing  cash amounting to P500.
                 "One (1)  rifle,  caliber 22, valued at P200.

belonging to  Uldarico Tabil,  of the total  value  of Seven hundred pesos (P700), to the damage and prejudice of the said  owner in the sum of F500, the rifle  having been recovered.

"Contrary to Article 294 of the Revised Penal Code as  amended by  Republic Act No. 18,  with the following  aggravating  circumstances:  (1)  Nocturnity,  (2)  Treachery,  (3) abuse  of  superior strength and  (4) 'that the crime  was committed in the house of the offended parties  without their giving any provocation therefor."

Before arraignment, upon motion of the Provincial Fiscal, the accused Vicente Cuajao was discharged from the information in order that he  may be utilized as witness for the prosecution.   Upon arraignment, Rafael Aranua and Magno Aniana pleaded not guilty.  The case  was called for hearing  and Vicente Cuajao was presented as witness for the prosecution.  He turned however hostile, so the Provincial  Fiscal petitioned  the  Court that  he   be  "allowed to amend the information.  The  petition was granted and Vicente Cuajao was again included as one of the  accused. Vicente Cuajao was then arraigned and pleaded not guilty,  but when the trial of the case was resumed, Vicente Guajao and  Magno Aniana  asked permission from  the  court to withdraw their plea  of not guilty and be allowed to plead guilty.  This petition was granted, the two accused were rearraigned and,  after having been duly informed of  the charges against them, freely and voluntarily entered  the plea of guilty and, accordingly,  the court sentenced them to undergo 20 years of reclusion temporal, to pay the sums of P500 and P2,000,  respectively, to Uldarico Tabil and to the heirs of Priscila Tabil, to suffer the accessory penalties provided by law,  without subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency, and to pay each the proportional costs

The case proceeded on against Rafael Aranua who, after trial, was found guilty and sentenced by the court to undergo reclusion  perpetua, to pay an indemnity of  P500  to Uldarico Tabil  and P2,000, to the  heirs of Priscila Tabil, without subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency,' to suffer the accessory penalties provided by law and to pay the proportional  costs.  No appeal was taken by .the  accused who pleaded guilty, but Rafael Aranua, whose defense was  only a complete  denial of participation in the  robbery and  an alibi, perfected his appeal on  the ground  that  the lower court erred: (1) '"in convicting  the defendant Rafael Aranua of the  crime charged in the  information  without proof of sufficient identification;  (2) in  observing that defendant Rafael  Aranua  was a conspirator  in the crime as charged in the information and convicting him as such; (3)  in convicting the  defendant  Rafael  Aranua of  the crime as charged in the information  notwithstanding  the contradictory testimonies  of Magno  Aniana and  Vicente Cuajao; and (4) in  finding the accused Rafael  Aranua guilty  of  the complex  crime of robbery  with homicide and  double serious physical injuries  and sentencing him to pay jointly and  severally  with   Magno  Aniana  and Vicente Cuajao, an indemnity of P500  to  Uldarico  Tabil and  P2,0,00 to  the heirs of  Priscila  Tabil, without subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency, to the accessory penalties provided for by law and  to pay the proportional costs  of the proceedings."

The perpetration of the crime at bar is beyond dispute. It is proven by the plea of guilty of the two co-accused of the appellant who did  not  appeal from  the decision. It is  shown by the testimonies of the witnesses for the prosecution, among whom was the accused Magno Aniana, who testified as to how the robbery was committed.  The only question,  therefore, for this Court to  determine  is whether the appellant took part in the  commission of the crime at bar.

One of the witnesses  for  the prosecution, Porfiria de Tabil, wife of another witness, Uldarico Tabil, testified that early at dawn  of July 5, 1951  while she was sleeping in her own room, her husband in the living room and her , father, Pedro Luza, in another room of the house located in the barrio of  San Isidro,  municipality of Jimenez, Misamis Occidental, she heard her husband shouting "thief" followed by a shot.  She stood up, and tried to go to her husband's room,  but two men, one tall and another short, with  their mouths covered by handkerchiefs,  met her and boxed  her.   At that time, her daughter and her niece who were  in another room also shouted and one  of the men,  the tall one, shot them.  The robber then asked her for money; she told them that it was in her father's room, so she was taken to  that room.  Once there, ,the  robbers saw the suitcase with the money and  the  short  robber grabbed it immediately.  Her father tried to prevent him from getting the suitcase and the two struggled for its possession-  During the  struggle her father was able  to grab  and  remove  the handkerchief covering the man's face and thus  she was able  to  identify the short  robber as  the accused Magno Aniana,  because the tall' robber focused  his  flashlight toward her  father and Magno Aniana.  The latter, however, was able  to get hold of the suitcase and took it outside.  Thereafter, she was brought .to the sala of the house where the tall robber asked her for her husband's firearm which, out of  fear, she gave it to him.  She further testified  that  the suitcase  contained f 500; that she was able to identify the tall robber as the herein appellant  Rafael Aranua because his mask only covered his mouth and nose, and that she was familiar with appellant  Rafael  Aranua because  on  June 7th and 30th, the latter accompanied by Magno Aniana went to her house to buy her pig; that  on July  5, 1951, after the arrest of the herein appellant and his co-accused, she immediately identified the appellant in the office of the Chief of Police of Jimenez as one of those who robbed them early at dawn of that  day.   Further, she testified that after  the  robbers had left the house, she found out that her husband and her niece were wounded and her daughter dead because of the shots  fired by the robbers.

Uldarico Tabil  testified that early  at dawn of  July 5, 1951,  at around  2:00 a. m.,  he noticed  the presence of three  men in his  house, whom he could not  recognize, but one of  them  was tall while the  other two were short;, that one of the robbers shot him and he was wounded; then he heard two more  shots;  that immediately there after the tall  robber asked his wife "where is the money of your  father?" to which his wife answered:  "It  is there in the possession of  my father"; then the robbers took his wife to the place where his father-in-law was sleeping; that he heard his wife say  to  her  father:  "Open  the door because there are persons asking for  money"; that. from the room of his father-in-law the robbers returned to the sala of the house where they asked for his  firearm which his wife had to  give to them; that after the incident, he was treated by Dr. Dano at the Provincial  Hospital of Oroquieta where he was admitted on July 5 and discharged on July 27, 1951, having spent P150 for medicines  and P200 for hospital fees; that he is a farmer  and carpenter earning  P20 a month.

Divina Ayeta,  the niece of Porfiria de Tabil, testified that at about 2:00 a.m. of July 5,1951, she woke up because she heard her uncle shout "thief" and then heard a shot; that her aunt Porfiria also woke up and tried to go to the sala, but she was met by two men, one of whom hit her with a flashlight; that she stood up and when she shouted "robber" she was fired at; that while she was lying down the robber who fired at her stepped  over her and  fired at Priscila Tabil who  was  hit  and died;  that  then the two men faced her aunt demanding money and  her  aunt told them that they will go to the room of her father where the money was, so they went there returning afterwards to the  living room because they wanted her uncle's  gun; that she was hit on the right shoulder and on the right, chest  below the right  clavicle; that she was treated by Dr. Contreras for about 28  days, after which she was still unable to  resume her household work.

Magno Aniana, one of the accused who pleaded guilty, testified that he knew Rafael Aranua at the house of the latter's sister since June 16, 1951, where he went to help in the repairs of said house; that on the night of July 4, 1951,  at  about 11:00 p.m.,  he and Vicente Cuajao  were taken by Rafael Aranua to a store in the town of Jimenez, where they drank beer  and afterwards they  went to the house of Aranua's sister where they slept; that later on, he and Vicente  Cuajao were  awakened  by  Rafael Aranua and the three of them went to a  house in the barrio of San  Isidro, municipality  of Jimenez;  that  once there, Aranua gave instructions that Vicente would stay downstairs while he and Aranua were to go  up the house; that before going up Aranua covered his face with a  handkerchief  (Exhibit I), while he covered his face with hand- kerchief  (Exhibit J);  that  he and Aranua went up the house and upon reaching its sala Aranua flashed  his 5-cell flashlight  but  immediately  put it out;  then  somebody shouted "robbers" and he saw the silhouette of a man trying to stand up; then Aranua took something from his waist and fired a shot at the man who was trying to stand up; that after  firing, he and Aranua  went to another room where there was a  small  light and  a woman  on whom Aranua focused his flashlight; then Aranua fired two shots; that immediately thereafter, he, the woman and Aranua proceeded to another room  where Aranua flashed  his flashlight and, upon seeing a  suitcase, told him to get it; then a man struggled with him for the possession of. the suitcase;. that he boxed that man  and  when the latter fell,  he was able to take  the suitcase, and that  during the struggle the handkerchief  covering his face fell.

The foregoing testimonies are unrefuted.  They are positive and convincing.   They fully  support the information filed against the  herein   appellant and  clearly show  his participation in the crime at  bar.   We are hot unmindful that the testimony of Magno Aniana should be received with caution, he being one of those who took part in  the robbery in question, but Aniana's testimony is corroborated in many respects by the declarations ol the  other witnesses for the prosecution and  it has been  constantly held  that when the testimony  of  an accomplice or  co-author of a crime  is corroborated by  other  evidence  on record,  the same  should be given due weight ,and  credence.   Appellant strongly  denies his participation  in  the robbery  at  bar. He claims that he was  sleeping the  whole night  of July 5, 1951, in the  house of  his sister  without having left it a single moment.   This defense, however, cannot be seriously entertained by  this Court, because the accused has been properly identified not only by Porfiria de Tabil but also by one of his co-accused whose testimony was  not shown to be motivated by malice or grudge against the appellant.

The Solicitor General calls our attention to the existence of the aggravating circumstances of nighttime and dwelling , of the offended parties, and prays that the maximum period of penalty prescribed in  paragraph  1 of  Article 294 in connection with paragraph 1  of Article 63 of the  Revised Penal  Code  be applied.  We find the Solicitor General's contention well taken, but, in voting the case, no sufficient votes for the imposition of  the  death penalty unto  the appellant "were obtained, hence, under the law, this penalty cannot be  imposed.

The  Solicitor  General likewise calls our attention  to the fact that the indemnity to the heirs of Priscila Tabil should  be  increased  to  P6,000  in accordance  with the decisions of this  Court in similar cases.  This contention is well taken, so.  the decision  should be modified so as  to increase such indemnity to P6,000.  Again, the Solicitor General contends that the indemnity in favor of Uldarico Tabil should be increased to P1,000, arguing that he spent P350 for medical treatment and hospitalization  and was incapacitated for about one year from his  habitual work as a farmer and carpenter,  which was giving  him P20 monthly.  We find, however, that the increase prayed for finds no support from the evidence  on  record with regard to the time during which Uldarico Tabil was incapacitated to perform his ordinary work  or occupation.

Lastly, the Solicitor General contends that the indemnity In favor of Divina Ayeta for  her 28 days' hospitalization and incapacitation from doing her household work should be fixed at P500, but, again, we find no supporting evidence to justify such increase.  At most,  the. minimum wage  of P4.00 could be appreciated in her favor for the 28  days she stayed in the hospital and, therefore,  the  appealed decision should be modified so  as to sentence the appellant to  pay an indemnity  of P250  in favor of Divina Ayeta.

Wherefore with  the  modifications  above stated, the decision appealed from  is hereby  affirmed in  all other respects, with costs  against the appellant.

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