On  November 27, 1954,  Bias Buela, his wife Josefina Borromeo, and their only son were living in the barrio of San Antonio, Municipality of Libon,  Albay.  That  day, Josefina took her  son to the Municipality of Tabaco  for medical treatment, leaving her husband Bias alone at home. In the house  there was a quantity of palay  (known  as "dinorado") placed in four containers, namely two buri bags, locally known as  "bayong", one sack and one box.  When Josefina returned home on November 29, she found that her husband had been killed and the house robbed. She saw the bloody' dead body of Bias on the ground, about ten meters  from the house.  She also found bloodstains inside the house, the stains trailing from it to the place where the body of Bias lay on the ground.  She also found that the two bayongs and  the sack, containing palay had disappeared and that only  one half of the palay contents of the box  remained.

The body of Bias was, examined by Dr. Zacarias Edades, municipal health officer, and  he found on the body, six wounds, the most fatal  of which was that in the neck. According to  him, he must have been killed about 9:00 p.m. on November 28, but  not earlier  than 8:00  p.m. There is no question that the crime of robbery with homicide was  committed on  November 28, 1954.

In Criminal Case No. 1649 of the Court of First Instance of Albay, Isidro Valladolid, Dioscoro Reptin, Antonio  Santonia, and Pedro Rubis were charged with robbery in band with homicide.  After trial, they were all found guilty and were sentenced each to reclusion perpetua, with the accessories of the law, to indemnify  the heirs of the deceased Bias, jointly and solidarily, in the sum of P6,000.00, and to pay the costs.  All the  accused, except Isidro Valladolid,. have brought  the case  to us on appeal.

We have scrutinized the record, particularly the extra-judicial statement made by  the appellants and ratified before  the  Justice of the Peace of Libon, as well as the testimony of the witnesses and we agree with  the  trial court that  the appellants'  guilt has been established beyond reasonable  doubt.   Judge  Mateo  L. Alcasid in his well considered decision, on the  basis  of the evidence, has made a detailed and correct statement of  the facts of the case.   We reproduce with favor the  pertinent portion of said decision:

"On November 27, 1954, Hilario Olivares, a member of the rural council of  barrio  Santo Nino, Libon, Albay, a barrio adjacent to San Antonio,  received  a complaint from  one Andres Mendevil to the  effect  that he found in  the  possession of the  accused Isidro Valladolid  the  sack which was  the container  of a certain amount of palay stolen from him some time ago.   Being a resident of the barrio of Santo Niño, Isidro  Valladolid was  sent for by  the rural councilor, and when he  came to the house of Hilario Olivares the councilor inquired from him if it was true that he  took two cans of 'dinorado' palay from  Andres Mendevil. Isidro Valladolid admitted that he did, where-upon, Olivares advised  Valladolid to settle the matter with Mendevil by returning the two  cans of 'dinorado' palay. Valladolid replied that he be given time until the next day, November 29, within  which to procure the necessary  palay with which to pay Mendevil and promised  to return  in the morning of said date to deliver the palay.   Morning of the 29th came and he complied with his promise bringing with him  the necessary  amount of 'dinorado' palay  to be paid to Mendevil.  The councilor  inquired from  Valladolid as to where he  got the palay and the latter replied that he got  it from Januario  Renganate,  a resident of barrio San Ramon, also of Libon.   On Wednesday, December  1st, the rural councilor learned of  the robbery and killing that occurred in the house of Bias Buela  and that some  of the  articles taken therefore were  a sack and two buri bags containing 'dinorado' palay  and in view  of  this report his  suspicion was aroused that the 'dinorado' palay delivered to him by Valladolid might have  been  part of loot taken from the house  of Bias Buela; so he sent for Valladolid again and told  him to bring the original container of the palay which he claimed  he got from Januario Renganate and with which he paid Mendevil.   Valladolid himself fetched the container which turned out to be a buri bag. This buri bag was later identified by the widow of  Bias Buela to be one  of the buri bags containing 'dinorado' palay which disappeared from her house on the  night of  November 28.  Further inquiries made  by  the  barrio  councilor  revealed that  the  'dinorado' palay delivered to him by Valladolid did not  come from  Januario  Renganate, for the  latter denied giving any palay to Valladolid.  Concluding from the circumstantial evidence he had on hand that Valladolid might have been responsible for the robbery and the killing of Bias Buela, the councilor had  him arrested immediately and brought to the office of the Chief  of Police in the poblacion of Libon for further investigation.

"The Chief of Police conducted the necessary investigation in the course of which  Isidro Valladolid confessed to the robbery and the killing of  Bias Buela and  pointed  and identified  Dioscoro  Reptin, Antonio  Santonia and Pedro Rubis  as his confederates in the commission of the crime.  One by one these three persons were arrested and investigated and  all the  four accused formally  signed  written confessions which were  presented during the  trial and marked as Exhibits B, C, D, and  E.  These written  confessions were signed by all the  accused in front of the Justice of the Peace  of Libon, Albay,  who translated  the contents thereof  to  them in  the Bicol dialect  and who even  inserted therein  in his own handwriting, certain corrections which the  accused  requested be made in  their answer.  When the four accused were arraigned before the Justice of the  Peace  Court  during the  second  stage of the preliminary investigation  they, assisted by  their counsel, voluntarily  pleaded guilty to the  charge.

"The facts  as  above narrated were fully established beyond  doubt by the  evidence  presented by the prosecution  during the  trial."

During the trial,  the  accused repudiated  their  sworn statements,  wherein they  admitted  participation in the commission of the crime, claiming that the said statements were obtained through  maltreatment  by  the  Chief  of Police.   We also  reproduce the pertinent  portion  of the appealed  decision  on  this  point:

"There was also an attempt on the  part of each  of the  accused to discredit the  voluntary character of  their signed confessions by alleging on the witness stand that they were maltreated  by the Chief of Police of Libon, Albay, but the alleged maltreatment stands uncorroborated by any evidence except the verbal assertions of each of the  accused.  They did  not complain to any authority,  even  to the Justice of the Peace before whom they signed the confessions, that they were maltreated,  and their failure to complain as  soon  as possible against maltreatment alleged  to  have been  inflicted  upon them to procure their confessions indicates that there has been no such maltreatment   (U.S.  vs.  Castellon,  12  Phil.,  160; U.S.  vs. Barroga, 21 Phil., 161).  Besides, the veracity of the "acts performed in the commission of the crime  as  described by the accused in the confessions is proven by the multiple wounds  found  on the  body  of Bias Buela.  There were no witnesses  to  the killing and  robbery other than, the accused themselves and the narration, of  details  in the commission thereof as contained in the confessions reveals, facts which could have been known only to the accused.  All these show unmistakably that the confessions were  voluntary.  Not only that, the truth of the acts committed as admitted by the accused in their written  concessions is  further corroborated by the testimony  of Cipriano Sallan, who, at about 8:00 o'clock in the evening of November 28,  1954, saw the  four  accused on the barrio path near  his house going in the direction of the house of Bias Buela, and about half an hour later, this witness  again  saw Isidro Valladolid and Dioscoro Reptin walking on the same path coming from the direction of the house of Blas Buela,  the former carrying a buri bag with some contents on his shoulder, while the latter was carrying a sack, also with  some contents, on his  head."

All the appellants interpose the defense of alibi and presented witnesses in corroboration.  This defense  had been fully analyzed by the trial court and found to be untenable. In this, the trial court was also correct.  To show how far said witnesses were willing to go in order to support the defense of alibi of appellants, one witness testified that appellant Antonio Santonia was in his house on  a certain date, whereas the record shows that on that date, Santonia had  already  been arrested  and was in jail.

As we have already said, the record amply and fully establishes the guilt of  the accused.   Aside from their sworn confessions admitting  complicity  in the commission of the crime, in the course of the investigation made by the Justice of the  Peace,  while assisted by counsel, they  all pleaded guilty to the charge of robbery with homicide. Not only this, but on the night  of the robbery, a witness for the prosecution  saw  the four  accused,  including  the three appellants herein pass his house and walk along the path leading to the house  of the deceased Bias.  Some time later, he saw  two of said accused returning from the direction of  said house of Blas, one carrying a loaded bayong on his shoulder  and the other carrying "a sack with contents on his head.  This fact not only connects the accused with the commission  of the crime, but does  away  with their defense of alibi and  the  claim that on the night  of  the robbery, they were nowhere near the vicinity of the house of  Blas.

The Solicitor General in his well written brief  claims that the commission of the crime was accompanied by two aggravating circumstances, namely, dwelling  and  nighttime, and  he recommends  that the  penalty  should be imposed in its  maximum degree,  namely,  death.  The claim and recommendation are not without merit.  However, for lack of the necessary number of votes for  the imposition  of  the death  penalty, we  affirm the decision of the trial court, with costs.

Paras, C. J., Bengzon,  Padilla, Bautista Angelo, Labrador,  Concepcion,  Endencia,  Barrera, and Gutierrez David, JJ., concur.