1. ROBBERY WITH HOMICIDE. — The principals in the crime of robbery who, on the occasion thereof, commit homicide, are guilty of the complex crime of robbery with homicide defined and penalized in article 503, ease No. 1, of the Penal Code, according to the doctrine laid down by this court in the ease of U. S. v. Tiongco (37 Phil., 951), among others.

2. CRIMINAL LAW; CIRCURMSTANCES; SPECIAL MITIGATING CIRCUMSTANCE OF ARTICLE 11 OF PENAL CODE. — According to the actual state of the decisions of this court, it results: (1) That the special mitigating circumstance of article 11 of the Penal Code, as amended by Act No. 2142, that is, the lack of instruction and education of the convict, may be and should be considered, as a general rule, even in cases of robbery and theft, when it appears that, under all the circumstances which surrounded the commission of the crime, the strict degree of responsibility which the Penal Code imposes upon common convicts should not be exacted of them; and (2) that said special mitigating circumstance may be compensated with one or some aggravating circumstances in order to reduce the penalty prescribed by law, but it will not prevent the imposition upon the convict of the penalty in its maximum degree when one or more aggravating circumstances concur which are not suspectible of compensation because of the lack of other mitigating circumstances. (U. S. v. Maqui, 27 Phil., 97; U. S. v. Tan-Corteso, 32 Phil., 104; U S. v. Landasan, 35 Phil., 359; U. S. v. Maido, 36 Phil., 847; U. S. v. Solana, 33 Phil., 582; U. S. v. Antonio, 31 Phil., 205.)

3. ID.; ID.; ID. — The special mitigating circumstance of article 11 of the Penal Code should not be applied in favor of the accused who were barrio lieutenants at the time of the commission of the offense. (U. S. v. Fortaleza, 12 Phil., 472.) But even considering in favor of the accused the presence of said special mitigating circumstance of article 11, equitatively weighing the moral importance of said special mitigating circumstance and the aggravating circumstances of the commission of the robbery in the dwelling place of the deceased Josefa Pasaporte, and of the homicide upon her in disregard of her age and sex, and of the alevosia present in the homicide committed against the child Corazon Guangco, we do not believe that the first of said circumstances should have such force as to completely destroy the effects of all the others; so that, compensating it with one or two of the aggravating circumstances mentioned, in view of the penalty imposed in No. 1, of article 503, of the Penal Code, it is proper in any event to impose upon said accused the maximum penalty fixed by law, in view of the number of aggravating circumstances, one of which, that of alevosia, is no longer susceptible of being compensated because of the absence of other mitigating circumstances. (U. S. v. Antonio, supra.)

The appellants in this case were found guilty of robbery with double homicide and sentenced by the Court of First Instance of the Province of Iloilo each to cadena perpetua, to pay jointly and severally to the heirs of the deceased Josefa Pasaporte the sum of P1,000, to return to Porfirio Guangco, also jointly and severally, the sum of P200 and the jewels robbed or their value of P2,083.50, with the accessories provided by law, and the payment of the costs.

The facts proved in the case are the following: At about 5 p. m. of the 22d day of July, 1919, the accused Basilio Reguera (alias Teniente Asir), and Alejandro Asuategui (alias Teniente Nando), the first armed with a dagger and the second also with a dagger and a bolo, assaulted the house of Josefa Pasaporte, situated in Calle Pilar, poblacion of the municipality of Pototan, Province of Iloilo, and upon gaining entrance, closed the doors, and blandishing the weapons they carried, tied the inmates, the aged Josefa Pasaporte and the young people Natalia Peronce (15 years old), her deaf brother Sixto and two children, grandchildren of the first person mentioned, who were Esteban and Corazon Guangco, the latter being 5 years old; and while they were thus tied and the accused Alejandro Asuategui guarded them, the other accused Basilio Reguera, threatening the old woman with death, asked her to give up P200 and as she answered that she had no money, he opened wardrobes, several tampipis and two boxes, Exhibits C and B of the prosecution, and took possession of the jewels they found, such as rings, bracelets, chains, etc., gathering and placing them in the smaller box, which he wrapped with the underwear which he wore upon entering the house and which he took off and changed with a cundiman, that is, a red cloth. At dusk they lighted the lights, a small one in a bottle prepared ad hoc and another bigger light in a lamp used by them as a lamp for outing. At about 6 o’clock Porfirio Guangco, son-in-law of the old woman Pasaporte, arrived, having been absent from the house with his wife Sofia Perenas, daughter of said Pasaporte. Porfirio called his mother-in-law, but instead of her one of the culprits looked out of the window and asked him for money threatening to kill all in the house if his order should be refused. At first he asked P1,000, and as Porfirio answered that he did not have that sum he reduced it to P500, and as Porfirio neither agreed to it, he reduced it to P200, and then Porfirio answered that he would go and look for it. As soon as possible he returned with the P200, wrapped it in a handkerchief, and delivered it to the accused Asir, throwing it to the window. After receiving the money, Reguera told the occupants to light the way as they were going down, warning them that they would kill the old woman and the children should they hear shots. They went down from the house and upon reaching the street they went on their way in the following order: In front was the old woman Pasaporte, held by the shoulder by Basilio Reguera (alias Asir), with one hand tied and the other loose and holding the child Corazon; then followed Sixto, the deaf, who carried the lamp already referred to, with one hand tied to that of Natalia Peronce who carried in her arms the child Esteban; behind them came the other accused Alejandro Asuategui (alias Nando) with a drawn dagger in his right hand and the bolo in the left; on the rear about two arms length away was Porfirio Guangco accompanied by Donato Parcon who also carried another lamp. They had hardly gone some distance from the house when they heard shots coming from the west thereof and then Asir, who was in front, holding the old woman by the shoulder, stabbed her in the abdomen and then the child Corazon in the right collar bone, the wound passing into the breast. And Nando, who was on the rear, also stabbed the child in the left part of the region of the groin. The culprits then took right. The old woman Josefa Pasaporte and the child Corazon Guangco died on the same night that the event occurred as a result of the wounds.

Upon examining the corpses of the deceased on the same night, Doctor Arancillo found that Josefa Pasaporte had a cut of 1 1/2 to 2 centimeters long by