1. CRIMINAL LAW; PRINCIPALS; ACCOMPLICES. — Persons taking part in the commission of a crime are not accomplices but principals where it is shown that there was a common design, although there may not have been any concert as to the participation in the details of the commission.

2. ID.; ID.; ID.; CONSPIRACY. — In order that there may be common design it is not necessary that, in conspiring for the perpetration of the crime, they should fix in detail all the means by which they are going to execute the crime; it is enough if there is a general plan for obtaining the intended result by the means which from time to time may be deemed adequate. Generally it is not material that the plan which was carried out differs widely from the original plan, nor will it be required to show the existence of any previous plan if, from the evidence, it clearly appears that there had been negotiations to the same end. (Underhill’s Criminal Evidence, page 794, par. 490.)

3. ID.; ID.; ID.; EVIDENCE. — Direct proof is not essential to show conspiracy. "It need not be shown that the parties actually came together and agreed in express terms to enter in and pursue a common design. The existence of the assent of minds which is involved in a conspiracy may be, and, from the secrecy of the crime, usually must be, inferred by the jury from proof of facts and circumstances which, taken together, apparently indicate that they are merely parts of some complete whole. If it is proved that two or more persons aimed by their acts towards the accomplishment of the same unlawful object, each doing a part so that their acts, though apparently independent, were in fact connected and cooperative, indicating a closeness of personal association and a concurrence of sentiment, a conspiracy may be inferred though no actual meeting among them to concert means is proved. . . The details of the conspiracy need not be proved. If a community of purpose among the parties to do some criminal act or acts is shown, it is not necessary that the acts which are charged or of which evidence has been given, were specifically contemplated by them or included in the original design. . ." (Underhill’s Criminal Evidence, page 795, par. 491.)

This is an appeal taken by Fidel Arrojo, Mamerto de Leon, Catalino Matula, Silvino Bulahan, Susano Gualdrapa and Felipe Gualdrapa from a judgment of the Court of First Instance of Occidental Negros convicting them of the crime of murder as principals, the first by induction, and the second by direct participation, and sentencing each of them to undergo life imprisonment; and Catalino Matula, Silvino Bulahan, Susano Gualdrapa, Felipe Gualdrapa and Jose Carbonel, of the crime of murder, as accomplices, and sentencing each of them to the penalty of twelve years and one day reclusion temporal, all of them to indemnify jointly and severally the heirs of the deceased, Eliseo Olmedo, and to pay the costs.

Jose Carbonel has not appealed from the judgment, so that it has now become final as to him.

To substantiate their appeal, the appellants assign the following supposed errors as committed by the trial court, to wit: (1) The conviction of the herein accused, Fidel Arrojo and Mamerto de Leon, as principals, and Catalino Matula, Silvino Bulahan, Susano Gualdrapa, Felipe Gualdrapa and Jose Carbonel, as accomplices, instead of acquitting them of the crime charged in the information upon reasonable doubt; (2) its failure to consider the principal and irreconcilable contradictions of the testimony of the witnesses for the prosecution which raise reasonable doubt in favor of the accused; (3) the holding that the accused were identified, when the evidence does not duly establish their identity; and (4) its failure to hold that Jose Carbonel, one of the herein accused, is the only author of the murder of Eliseo Olmedo, as shown by the confession of the said Jose Carbonel made in open court that he had killed Eliseo Olmedo in self-defense.

The facts proven at the trial beyond a reasonable doubt are as follows: On the date of the commission of the crime there existed in the municipality of Ilog, Province of Occidental Negros, two rival societies, enemy to each other known as Mainawaon and Kusug Sang Imol, respectively. Eliseo Olmedo was a member of the Mainawaon and Jose Carbonel, Mamerto de Leon, Fidel Arrojo, Catalino Matula, Silvino Bulahan, Susano Gualdrapa and Felipe Gualdrapa, were members of the Kusug Sang Imol. Four days before the crime, Fidel Arrojo was stopped on his way and then chased by four Mainawaons who tried to catch him, but he succeeded in escaping. In the month of October, Fidel Arrojo went to the club of the Kusug Sang Imol and told the vice-president, Ramon Larracas, and the secretary, Francisco Gemora, both of the said club, that the Mainawaons of the barrio of Gosy, headed by Eliseo Olmedo, were after him. Upon hearing such notice, Ramon Larracas struck the table with his fist and said: "Why did you not kill him? Kill him." Francisco Gemora, also striking the table with his fist, seconded the proposition, saying: "You try to kill him; you must kill him, because if you kill him there, where there are many Mainawaons, they will become afraid, and if you kill him, do not be afraid because in Bacolod there are good lawyers. I am a procurador here in Bacolod and our club has a good lawyer in Bacolod." After the said interview, on the morning of December 26, 1924, Fidel Arrojo was telling everybody the following: "To-night, I am going to kill three Mainawaons; if not F. Bello, then Juan Catalan; if not Juan Catalan, then Eliseo Olmedo." On the afternoon of the same day, Eliseo Olmedo, Mamerto de Leon, Fidel Arrojo, Jose Carbonel, Catalino Matula, Silvino Bulahan, Susano Gualdrapa, Felipe Gualdrapa, Santiago Helboligaya, Andres de Leon and Vicente Genito met in the house of one Basilio Salinas where there was a little celebration of the birthday of one of the children of the owner of the house. During their stay in the said house and while drinking tuba and eating some viands, Fidel Arrojo and his coaccused were seen talking in a low voice and so behaving as to arouse the suspicion of the other guests that something wrong was being planned. Fidel Arrojo was seen looking intently at Eliseo Olmedo from head to foot. When Andres de Leon asked him why he looked at Eliseo Olmedo in such a manner, Fidel Arrojo whispered to him in the ear "You shut up, a lightning will strike that fellow, I am going to kill him." When the departure of the guests began, Mamerto de Leon and Fidel Arrojo were the first to leave, followed by Vicente Genito and Santiago Helboligaya. Afterwards Eliseo Olmedo left the house accompanied by Catalino Matula, Jose Carbonel, Felipe Gualdrapa, Susano Gualdrapa and Silvino Bulahan. When they were about 30 meters from the house of Basilio Salinas, the voice of Fidel Arrojo was heard, saying "Go ahead, strike him now." Catalino Matula then placed his right hand upon the shoulder of Eliseo Olmedo, whereupon a fight ensued between the two. Silvino Bulahan, Susano Gualdrapa, Mamerto de Leon and Felipe Gualdrapa immediately also seized Eliseo Olmedo, two upon each arm, pulling his two arms crosswise; two holding both legs; one holding his waist and Mamerto de Leon holding his nape with his left hand. When Eliseo Olmedo had become weakened, his assailants took of his shirt and lowered his pantaloons until the knees. On that instant the voice of Fidel Arrojo was again heard saying "strike him now with the bolo." Upon hearing this, in the twinkling of an eye everybody let Eliseo Olmedo and Mamerto de Leon strike him with his bolo on the nape and everybody run away. The witness Vicente Genito who saw with Andres de Leon all of this from behind some shrubbery, attempted to interfere, but Mamerto de Leon met him and said "You also want to help him?," at the same time giving him a bolo blow which hit him on the right hand, inflicting a wound 2 inches long. When the body of Eliseo Olmedo was examined by Dr. Fortunato Angeles on December 28, 1924, the following wounds and contusions were found: One on the base of the cranium, 15 inches long by 1 inch wide and 1