The information filed  in this case is  as  follows:

"That on or about the 4th day  of  May,  1910,  in  the municipality of Silay  of this province, in the Tenth Judicial District, Philippine Islands,  the said Ciriaco Levente  entered the house of Petra Magallon, situated in the municipality of Silay, and unlawfully, maliciously and criminally, with the intent of gain, took possession of various  effects and  of  the sum of P300, all contained in a trunk,  which the said accused broke open, and did, with the exercise of violence against the person of Petra Magallon, by striking her with a  cane of fan-palm wood, clutching her by the throat and  strangling her, kill the said Petra Magallon, thereby committing robbery and homicide of the said Petra Magallon; in violation of article 503, paragraph 1, in relation with article 404, of the Penal Code."

Upon this complaint the defendant, Ciriaco Levente, was tried, found guilty, and sentenced to life imprisonment (cadena perpetua), to indemnify the heirs of Petra Magallon in the sum of P1,000 as damages and P300 for the value of the property taken, and to pay the costs.  From this judgment the defendant appealed.

Before the 4th of May, 1910, Petra Magallon, 70 years of age, lived with her son and servant girl in the town of Silay, Province of Occidental  Negros.  About daylight on the morning of that day, the 4th  of May, her  son, Ignacio Ferrero, left the house for the  purpose  of going to a place called Dos Hermanos, leaving his mother, Petra, alone, the servant  girl having  already  gone  to  visit  her brother [mother].  Ignacio returned about 6 o'clock that afternoon and on  arriving at the house found that it was closed and         fastened on the outside.   After some difficulty he succeeded in forcing his way into the house and there found his mother, Petra, lying on the floor dead.  According to an examination of the body made by the doctor, this old lady met her death by a blow on the head, and by strangulation.  After Ignacio discovered that his mother was dead he noticed that his trunk had been broken open and on further examination found that P300, together with his hat and a pair of trousers, were missing from the  trunk.  These facts stand undisputed.  That this old lady was murdered  and robbed is not questioned.  No one saw this crime committed.

Ignacio Ferrero, 24 years of age, single, a merchant, was the first witness called by the prosecution.  After stating the time he left his house on the morning of May 4, what he found on his return, the  amount of money, hat and trousers taken, and that he left his mother alone on that morning, he testified further in substance as follows: That he had known the defendant for about a year; that the  defendant visited his house frequently; that the last  time defendant was in his house was about 8.30 p. m. on May 3, just the day before the murder; that the defendant came to  his house then to invite him to go to Iloilo the following day; that he told the defendant he was going to Dos Hermanos on the following morning;  that defendant was at his house on the night of May 1 and also on April 28; that when he came on April 28 he  saw him, witness, counting his money and asked to borrow P5; that he refused to loan the defendant this money; that he recognized as his a certain hat which was exhibited in court; that this hat was in the same trunk with the money, and that it was also taken on May 4.

Marciano Castellanes testified that he knew the defendant well; that the defendant's brother was his  (witness's) compadre; that the defendant on the 28th of April, 1910, came to the hacienda where  he  was working  and had  a short conversation with him; that the following was said in that conversation:

"The defendant asked me if I knew Apolinar and Angel. I answered no, that I did not know them, and then asked him 'What reason have you that you are asking for these men?' and he answered, 'I would like to know that because I was intending to go to a house where there is some money. His name is Ignacio,  a merchant.'   The conversation continued, and the accused said, 'I need those two men because they know Ignacio, and even if I do not know Ignacio I can do the business myself/  I said  to him, 'Why, are you not afraid?'  And the accused said, 'I am not afraid because only Ignacio and his mother and a little girl  live  in that house,' and he then  said to me that Ignacio, the merchant, had some money and  he said to me that  he saw when Ignacio was counting the money.   He said,  'I was  hunting  those men,  Angel and  Apolinar, because I would like, to  catch Ignacio because he has some money and is trying to  go  to Iloilo,'  I told him that I thought  it  was not a good  thing and as the house is within the  municipality I  thought the business was risky and he said to me, 'Although that  house is within the town  there  are  no houses near  and  it  is separated from the other houses,' and then he bid me  good-by and went to Silay."

The next witness was Mr. Barber,  a captain in the Constabulary, who identified  the trunk  and the basket, and their contents, which were taken from the defendant  at Iloilo.

Guillermo Julayco testified that he knew the defendant; that the  last time he saw  him was about 9  o'clock on the morning of May 4, 1910, coming out of the house of Ignacio Ferrero,  walking toward the street,  with  his hand under his coat pocket as if he were carrying  something heavy in  it.

Severina Apao testified that the defendant and his querida were living in her house; that early on the morning of the day when Petra Magallon was murdered the  defendant left her house, saying that he was going to the house of one Cesar to get some money;  that he came back about  noon, bringing some money wrapped in a handkerchief which he turned over to his querida Lucia; that on that  same afternoon the defendant and his querida left for Iloilo on a lorcha.
.
Filomena de la Roma (alias Lucia), the defendant's querida, was called as a witness for the prosecution and testified that she had lived with the defendant before  he  was married, but that after he got married they separated and she went to Iloilo; that  they again began living together in April; that the defendant left the house where they were living  about 5 o'clock on the morning of the day Petra Magallon was murdered  and returned about 11 o'clock of the same day; that on his return he brought a little less than P100 in cash  and turned it over to her and told her to keep it in the trunk;  that she  put  this money in the trunk without counting it; that on the same afternoon about 2 o'clock, they left for Iloilo on a lorcha, taking the money with them; that while in Iloilo they  bought the trunk which had been exhibited in court, and  also the following articles.

"A new pair of men's patent leather American make Regal shoes; one pair of ladies' shoes, new; a new Roskopf watch and chain; a set of  two cuff buttons and two shirt buttons, new; two collars, new; two  men's shirts, new; one  pair of ladies' stockings, new? two  men's new neckties; one pair of socks, new, for men; new necktie scarf pin;  woolen  cloth for man's pants, new; a  piece of white muslin, new;  cloth for woman's shirt, new; six  pieces of lace embroidery, new, and a pair of armlets, new."

She  testified further that  this hat (the one which was exhibited and identified as belonging to Ignacio) was bought in Iloilo, but that she could not state the shape of it because they bought it at night, and that the .defendant never wore this hat at any time.

The witnesses presented by the defense were the father and wife of the defendant, Florentino Lastimoso,  and the defendant himself.  According to the testimony of defendant's father he, the defendant,  owned, at the time of this trial, four carabaos and had gathered  in April, 1910, from sugar fields  which he had  rented, 380 piculs  of  sugar.  This witness also testified that his son came to his house  (the defendant and witness were living together) on Wednesday, May 4, to get some money; that  on that day he gave the defendant P50; that on the  same day he, defendant, got P15 from Florentino Lastimoso, and that he also got P20 from his  wife the day before.   Lastimoso corroborates the testimony of this witness with reference to the P15 turned over to the defendant by him, and so does  the wife of the defendant with reference to the P20 which she claims she gave the defendant.

Ciriaco Levente, the defendant, married, and about  26 years of age, testifying in his  own behalf, stated that  he and his querida, Filomena (alias Lucia), left Silay on a lorcha on  the afternoon of  May  4 for  Iloilo, arriving  at their destination  about 4 p. m.  on the following day; that he took with  him on this trip P85 which  he had received from his wife, his father,  and Florentino; that he and his concubine bought in  Iloilo the  articles, including the hat, mentioned by the witness Ferrero and enumerated by Filomena ; that when  he was arrested in Iloilo on May 6 he had these articles  in his possession;  that he did go  to the house of Ferrero, at about 7.30 p. m. on May 3, to get a drink  of water and that he was  also there on May 1, but  he denied having tried to borrow P5 from Ferrero on April 28, and also denied that he was in the church in Silay on the morning of the 4th of May; that he did not have  a conversation with  Marciano Castellanes on April 28.  On  being asked about the  380 piculs of sugar which Ms father testified he, defendant, had gathered from his fields, he stated that  he did not receive this sugar.

After his arrest and return to the town of Silay the justice of the peace held  a preliminary investigation  and the accused, at his own request, testified as a witness in his own behalf.  His  testimony  then taken was reduced to writing and duly  presented at the trial  of this  cause.  In  this preliminary investigation the defendant testified that the woman Filomena  (alias Lucia)  was his wife and that the money which they spent in Iloilo belonged to this woman, she having received  same  from  her former  husband,  a  Chinaman, some two and a half years before; and that he did not leave the house where he was stopping at any time on Wednesday morning, May 4.   While on the trial of this case in the Court of  First Instance he testified that the money with which he bought the trunk and other articles in Iloilo, and also the money which he lost in gambling in that city, was money which he had received  from his wife, his father, and from Florentino.

That Petra Magallon was murdered in her house on the 4th of May and robbed there can be no question.  She was left alone on that morning by her son.   There was P300 in the trunk in her house at that time.  The defendant is a comparatively young man and had abandoned his wife and was then living with another woman.  He knew  that there was money in Ferrero's house as  he had seen him counting it on the 28th of April, just  six days  before the murder occurred.   He had no money and attempted to borrow some from Ferrero.   He was in Ferrero's house again  on the 1st and  3d of May.  He knew that  Ferrero  would  not be  at home on the morning of the 4th  of May,  and he was seen on that morning coming out of the house of Ferrero holding his pocket as if he were carrying something of some weight. On the 28th of April he was seeking two men to assist him in securing Ferrero's money.  He returned on May 4th  to the house where he and  his concubine were  stopping with a certain  amount of money which he turned over  to his querida.  He, in company with his querida, left that afternoon for Iloilo, and while in Iloilo purchased various articles of value,  which he  had not  been accustomed  to  using. He also lost some money at gambling.  When arrested  in that city, aside from these various articles, there was found in his possession the hat of Ignacio Ferrero.  Ferrero identified this hat as his and  showed  that it was in the trunk along with the money.  According to the defense the defendant had not used this hat, but the  court below, on examining the same, found that  it had  been  used.  The  defendant stated in the preliminary investigation that Filomena was his wife and that the money spent by them in Iloilo belonged to her and that he did not leave the house where they were stopping at any time  on the morning of the 4th of May. In the Court of  First Instance  he told an entirely different story.  No one saw the defendant enter the house, murder the old woman,  nor take the money.   All of the testimony is circumstantial, but it is strong and convincing.   It allows the mind to rest easily upon the certainty of his guilt.   All the facts are consistent with each other  and with the main fact established  (guilt of the defendant), and the circumstances taken together are  of a conclusive  nature.   All produce a reasonable and moral certainty that the defendant, and no other person, committed this crime.

"No general rule can be laid down as to the quantity of circumstantial evidence which in any case will suffice.   All the circumstances proved must be consistent with each other, consistent with  the hypothesis that the accused is guilty, and at the same time inconsistent with the hypothesis  that he is innocent,  and with every  other rational hypothesis except that of guilt.  (12 Cyc, 488.)

"A conviction may  rest upon circumstantial  testimony alone, but the facts and circumstances must be such as are absolutely incompatible upon any reasonable hypothesis with the innocence of the accused, and incapable of explanation upon any reasonable hypothesis other than that of the guilt of the accused."   (State vs. Hunter, 50 Kan., 302.)

Article 503 of  the Penal Code provides  as follows:

"A person guilty of robbery with violence  or intimidation of the person shall be punished:

"1. With the penalty of  cadena perpetua to death, if on account or on the  occasion  of  the  robbery there results homicide."

The  trial court found the defendant guilty of a violation of this article,  without any aggravating or  extenuating circumstances.   This crime was committed in the dwelling house of the  deceased and  without any provocation,  and also without  respect for the age and sex of the deceased    These facts  must be  considered as  aggravating circumstances, as provided for in No. 20 of article 10 of the Penal Code.   (U. S.  vs. Saadlucap, 3  Phil. Rep., 437.)   No extenuating circumstances were present.

The judgment of the court below is hereby reversed and it is adjudged  and decreed that the  defendant is  guilty of the crime of robbery with homicide, with the aggravating circumstances above set forth, and we hereby sentence him to the extreme  penalty of death, to the accessories provided by law,  and to pay the costs.  So ordered.

Arellano, C. J., Mapa, Carson, and Moreland, JJ., concur.