1 be sentenced in every case to sttpport the offspring of the offended party, i f there be any; but rvi th regard to the increase of the inclemnity asked for, lve find no cause for al teri ng the deci si on on that poi nt, because we bel i eve that the case i nvoked by the Sol i ci tor General i s not i n poi nt with the case at bar, for that case refers to a multiple rape committed by four persons against a single offended party, while in the present case there is only one offender. Wherefore, upon modi fi cati on of the deci si on appeal ed from, the accused i s hereby sentenced to undergo an i nde- termi nate penal ty of from ei ght (8) years and one (1) day of. pri si ,6n maAor to fourteen (14) years, ei ght (8) months and ( 1) day of reclusitjn temporal, rvith the accessory penalties prescribed by larv, to indemnify the offended party i n the sum of P500, rvi thout. subsi di ary i mpri sonment i n case of i nsol vency, to support the offspri ng of sai d offended party, if there be any as a result of the offense, and to pay the costs. Torces, Pres. J., and Fel ;i r,,I., concttr. Judgntent modi fi .ed. l No. 2300-R. January 19, 19491 In the matter of the testate estate of the deceased Fi l o- mena Bermoy; EnaonoNCIANA P. on Vntoso, peti ti oner and appel l ant, ?/s. Josn V. PuzoN rt {L., opposi tors and appel l ees. 'Wrr,r,; PnoeA,rB; Norv-CoupLIANcE v/ITE Fonlmr, Ruqursrrns Axxur,s V/rr,l ; CasE AT Ban.-The attestati on ci ause i n thc i nstant case has dai l ed, to rnenti rrn that the wi l l to whi ch i t was at- tached or an,v page thereof had been si gned by the testatri x, or that s<rmebody el se, under her express request, si gned her nane, and that she affi xed thereto her ' uhumhmark i n the presence of each and every one of the rvi tnesses. ff has al so fai l ed to menti on that the rvi tnesses si gned sai d rvi l l and every one of the pages of whi ch i t consi sts i n the presence of each ,other and of the testa.tri x. Ti re omi ssi on of these two essenti al facts i ;o the val i tl i ty of the wi l l renders the same nul i and voi d. ( Uy Coque os. Navas L. Si oca, 43 Phi t . , 405; Saf r o os. Qui nt ana, 48 Phi l . , 506; Gnmban os. Gor echo, 50 Phi l . , 30; Qui nt o as. I f orat a, 54 Phi l . , 481. ) APPtrAL, from a judgment of the Court of First Instance of Leyte. Di ez, J. The facts are stated i n the opi ni on of the court. Gabino R. Veloso for apirellant. Joaenci o Borneo for appel l ee. Rooas, ./..' Nearly trvo years after the death of Filomena Bermcy, Jose Puzon, one of her hei rs, fi l ed an appl i cati on for the admi ni strati on of the estate l eft by her, or to be more speci fi c, on November 9, 1945, bei ng Speci al Proceedi ngs DtrcnMnun, 1950 OFFICIAL GAZtrTTE 6169 No. 16 of the court of F i rst Instance of Leyte, i n whi ch he hi msel f was appoi nted speci al admi ni styator on 1\{arch 30, 19. 16. On November 23, 1945, Emerenci ana de Vel oso, another hei r of the deceased Fi l omena Bermoy, fi l ed an appl i cati on for the probate of her so-cal l ed l ast l vi l l and testament, rvhi ch rvas Speci al Proceecl i ngs No. 48 of the same court. opposi t i on was f i l ed t o sai d appl i cat i on by Jose Puzon, ' Maxi mi na Puzon, Lourdes Pttzon, Pri mopusa Val enzona, Il umi nado Val enzona, Cari ci o Val enzona, Sofroni a Val en- zona, al l eged to be l dbi ti mate hei rs of the deceased. At t he t ri al of sai d t rvo' cases, t he part i es ent ered i nt o t he fol i orvi ng agreement of facts: 1. That Fi l omena Bermoy had al u' ays been resi di ng i n barri o Cari dad, muni ci pal i ty of Baybay, Leyte, and was the larvful wiclorv of Benito Valenzona, who dGrd on No- vemebr 11. 1914 and t hat Fi l omena Bermoy di ed on June 28, 1943 i n sai d barri o; 2. That the coupl e had three chi l dren named Maura Va- l enzona u' ho di ccl i n 1905, Desi deri o \ / al enzona l ' ho cl i ed on No' ,' ember, 1916 and Lcopol da Yal enzona; 3. That l {aura Val enzona l eft three chi l dren named Jose Puzon, Cl i steta and Isabel o Puzon, tl i i s l ast one havi r:g di ed i n ' 1941, and l eft fi ve natural chi l dren, al l rni nors, namel y: Maxi mo, Remedi os, Amada, Boni faci a and Lour- des, al l surnamed Puzon; 4. That f)esi deri o Val enzona l eft si x l egi ti mate chi l dren, to l vi t: Pri rnopusa i Cl oti l de, rrhi , di ed cn Ivtay 6, 1945: I l umi nacl o; Cari ci o; Euf rcni a and Abedesa, al l of l egal age. Cl oti l de Val enzona l eft threc l egi ti mate chi l dren, al l mi nors, named Ceci l i a ci c Leorr; Mari a Del l a de Leon and Eufroni o dc Leon; 5. That Leopol cl a Va.l enzona was fi rst marri ed to Li no Pefi al oza by g hom sl i e had fi ve chi l d:en named: Cri spi l a Pefialoza de l\Iiraflor, P:octtlo Pefi.aloza, I\{aria Pefialoza de Vicencic.,, Lou:des Pefi,aloza de Bibas and Emerenciana Pei i al oza de Vel oso; and 6 That Leopol da Val enzona contracted a second mar- ri age rvi th one Peci ro de Veyra, but they had no i ssue. Both Spoul SS wel .e tahen by the gucrr i l l a forces i n October, 1943 and \\' ere seen rro more. The so-cal l ed l ast rr,-i l l and testament of Fi l omeri a Ber' - fl oy, marhed Exhi bi t B, i n rvhi ch she l vi l l ed ai l her cstate exclusively in favor of her daughtel Lgqpolda \talenzona, u' ri tten i n the Vi sayan di al ect and c' om;tcsec' l t,f three pages i s dated Septenber 2, 1"942 and thumbmarked by her and si gned by the rvi tnesses Roque Rom, Isai as Bartol i ni anrl Cami l o Tal am, u' hi l e the attestati on cl attse rt' as si gned by Cami l o Tal am, Gregori o Del aganar and l \{ateo l \{' i ri l l o. hfateo l \[ui ' i l l o, ti re notary publ i c x' ]ro prepared t]re so- cai i ed l ast u' i l l and testament and srgned the sanl e as a 6170 OFFICIAL GAZETTE Vol. 46, No. lz witness, as rvell as Isaias Bprtolini, another instrumental wi tness, testi fi ed that the {humbmarks appeari ng on the margines of the first trvo pages and at the foot oi the will were affixed by the testatrix Filomena Bermoy inside her room and then brought out by pedro de veyra who caused them and others to sign the same as ryitnesses to the effect that said document lvas the lag,t. wiil and testament of Filomena Bermoy, rvhen in fac{none of said witnesses saw the testatrix affix her thumbmark to said last lvill and testament. Isaias, however, added that he signed as wit- ness to a document which pedro de veyra showed him, purporting to be his appointment as a<iministrator of the estate of the testatrix Filomena Bermoy. On the other hand, the rvitness Roque Rom, Gregorio Delaganar and camilo Talam testified that they were-sent for by the testatrix Filomena Bermoy, a \ryoman gB years old, whom they had knon'n for a long time; that when all the persons callecl to sign the document as witnesses were present around a tabl e i n the l i vi ng room, to wi t: Mateo Muri l l o, l sai as Bartol i ni , Roque Rcm, Gregori o Del aganar and camilo Talam, the tcstatrix requested Mateo Murillo to read sai d Exhi bi t B to her and to al l the wi tnesses; fl rat after the same had been rearl, and she hauing stated that said docurrrrrt was her last rvill and testament, she asked Rcque Rom to si gn i l i e same for her because she coul Jnot, see nor rvrite her name, and Roque Rom did so at the expressed reqr;sgt of said testatrix and at the same time .signed the same on ail the rrlargirrs of the first two pages as well as at the foot of the will in her presenee an.i iir the prescnce of all the witne.sses; that aftcr having signcd her name, the testatrix reque.sted the notary pubric taatuo Murillo to assist her in aflixing her thumbmark over her signature to all the pages thereof in the presence of each and every one of the witnesses, and thereafter the wit- nesses in turn signed said document on the left margins of the first tu'o pages and at the bottom thereof as ivell _,,- as at the end of the attestaticn clause in the presence of the testatrix ancl each and every one of the said witnesses. The w i tness Roque Rom testi fi ert that rhe spouses pedro dc veyra anci Leopolda valenzona were both present in the living room where ilie riocument was signed by the tes- tatrix and the rvitnesses, whereas the other witness Gre- gorro Delaganar saicl that although Leopolda yalenzona was there presen t at, the tirne of the signing, her husband, Pedro de veyra, was in another house. camilo Talam in turn testified that although said spouses were sometimes present in the living room where the signing took place, they used to go in a'd out, but rvhen Filorr.n* Bermoy thumbmarked said clocument, pedro de veyra v/as noi present. DrcnlrsBn, 1950 OFFICIAL GAZETTE 617t In vi ew of the foregoi ng, the l ower court concruded: "En conel usi 6n, er Juzgado es de opi ni 6n que no expresandose en el testamento propi o ni en ra cr6usura i . Jt*ti *ami ento que ros testi gos han fi rmado el testamento en presenci a de Ia testadora y en Ia de cada uno de ei l os, er testamento no se ha otorgado de acuerdo con l a l ey; y su regal i zaci 6n debe ser denegada. "Por l as razones expuestas, el Juzgado deni ega ra l egari zaci 6n del t est ament o Exhf bi t o 8. , , The appel l ant assi gns but one error, to wi t: ' ' EI Juzgado Inferi or err6 al denegar l a l egal i zaci 6n del testamento Exhf bi t B, f undandose en que su cr5usura de at est i guami ent o no certi fi ca que l os.tes!]sos ro hayan fi rmado u., p""rurrci a de l a testadora y de cada uno de el l os. ' , In discussing the above-quoted error the attorneys for the appel l ant rai se trvo questi ons, to wi t: "1' El cri teri o hoy predomi nante en l a Corte Suprema es absol u_ tamente l eberal en cuarto a ra l egar i zaei 6i -Ju-turtur,entos. "2. Hay di sposi ci ones de l as regras de ros t ri bunares (Rures of court s) que aparent enrent e pel mi t en p. rebas-arl ' nde a f i n de supri r l as defi ci enci as ci e una cl 6usul a de atesi i eu"l i rrto. ,, The attestati on cl ause i n que,l ti on reaci s: "' we, the uncersi gned, rvi tnesses to thi s l ast rr' l and testanrent of Fi ro' ena Bermoy certi fy that ti re above menti oned i s the l ast wi i i and testament of Fi romena Bermoy *rri .r, she pubri she.l and made known rn sai d testament, ancr that- we, i t",e wi t.russes wi l l si gn our names hereuncer i n order to attest to truth that thi s testament consi st two pages, and on tLe thi rd page i , "r" attesti "ti on as wi t_ nesses- and we al so si pSed our names o' au tbe l eft margi ns of i l ri s testament' thi s 2nd da]' of septe-rrl her, rg4r, at ba*i o cari dad, muni ci pal i ty of Baybay, pr.ovi nce of Lcyte, phi l i ppi nes.,, It is contenr^led by the appellan t, that the criter.ion ob- , tai ni ng i n several deci si ons of the supreme court i s ab_ scl utel v l i beral r,vi fl r respect to the admi ssi on of wi l l s to probate, and to that effect ci ted severar creci si ons of our honcrabl e Supreme Corrrt. secti on 618 ot cocre cf ci vi l procedure, as far as i t i s rel evanr, to the questi on at i ssue, reads: ' (* * * The attestati on shal state the rrurnber of sheets or paqes nsed, .pon .vhi ch the wi n i s vrri tt:n, uJ' tn" fact that the testator si gned i l i e wi l l and e-.' erj .- page thereof, or caused some other person to w' te hi s narne, ti "a9i rri , ""p""* oi recti ,n, i n ti re presence of three l vi t' esses, and the l atter wi t' eJed and si gned the wi l l and al l pages thereof i n the presence of the testator and of each ot hgr . r r vr vr r e ' Ei From the above_quoted provisiorr, it may be gathered t hat t he at t est at i on crause shout a si at e, --i t ) t he n^b", / of sheets or pages of u' hi ch the wi i l consi si s ; (z) the fact that the testator signecl ilre rviil una *..u oun. ilrereof, or caused some oi l rer per.son to rvri te hi s narne under hi s exprcssed di recti o' ; (.3) that the si gni ng of the rvi l l on each and every page thereof by the I.stu-to* or by sorne- i ;J 6172 OFFICIAL GAZETTtr Vol . 46, No. 72 bocl y el se under hi s expressed di recti on shoul d be made i n the presence of three rvi tnesses; (4) that the three rvi t- nesses si gned the l vi l l and al l the pages thereof i n the presence of the testator and of each other. The attesta- ti on cl ause of the wi l l , Exhi bi t B, above-quoted, certi fi es ( 1) that the precedi ng document i s the l ast rvi l l and tes- tament of Fi l omena Bermoy publ i shed and made known therei n i Q) that the wi tnesses di d si gn thei r names there- under in order to attest to the truth that said testament consi sts of two pages; (3) that on the thi rd page thereof appears their attestation as lvitnesses, to rvhich they affixed or si gned thei r names and on al l of the l eft margi ns of the testament on the Znd day of September, 7941, at barrio cariclad, municipality of Baybay, Province of Leyte, Phil- i ppi nes. Sai d attestati on cl ause has fai l ed to menti on that the testatrix signed the rvill and each and every one of the pages thereof, or that she had caused her name to be signed by one of the witnesses and affixed her thumbmark thereto i rr the presence of each ancl every one of the l v!t- nesses rvho si gnecl the attestati on cl ause. It has al so fai l ed to mention that the rvitnesses signed said rvill antl all of the pages jn thc presence of the testatrix and of each and ever;' one of them. A close stucry of the cases decided by otlr honorable Supreme Court on the question at issue shorvs that if the attestation clause of a rvill fails to shorv that the will was signed by the testator on each and every page thereof, in the presence of the instrumental rvitnesses' and that the l atfer i n turn si gned the sanre on each and everl ' page i n the presence of ihe testator anC each and ever]' onc of tirrrr, the will has ah'rays been considered r.ull and void. It i s truc, hotvever, that i n some i nsbances, the fai l ttre to mention that each and every one of the pages of the will had been signe,.l in the presence of the witnesses, provided the same shorvs that the rvill rvas signed by the testator in the presence of the tvitnesses, and that the fact that all the pages thereof has been signed hy the testator cnd '' said rvitnesse.s, may- bq ;-l1own b-y an inspection Of the. Wfl] itsclf, has not been considered"-a-mater:ial de-fect, although suc"[- doctr:inei"has been reversed. in later decisions. In effect, in the case of Uy Cq-gUe,.-1ls., N-a-va! lL: Sioca, 43 Phil., 405, tfue attestation clause contested teaT as f t rl l o' vs: ,,.We, fhe undersi gned wi tnesses of thi s rri l l , statg that i t has been shorvn to us by the restatri x as her l ast wi l l and testament' And as she cannot si gn her name, she asked thac Mr. Fi l omeno Pi czon si gn her name i n the presence of each of us, and each of us, the rvi t- nesses, al so si gned i n the presence of the testatri x"' Sai d attestati on cl attse was consi dered defecti ve for i ts fai l ure to state the number of pages contai ned' i n the rvi l l -' anci that the rvitnesses signed in the presence of each other' : ;,; a' ' ' :?!3 ' .L:. i.- DECpMBpR, l gbO OFFICIAL GAZETTE 6173 lilql, The wi l l was, therefore, consi derecl nui l and voi d and l vas not admi tted to probate. I n t he case of Saf l o as. eui nt ana, 4g phi l . , 506, t he fol l orvi ng doctri ne was l ai d dorvn ; "An attestati on crause whi ch does not reci te that the wi tnesses si gned the wi l r and each and every page thereof on the reft margi n i n the presence of the testator i s defect-i ve, and such a defect annul s t he wi l l . " (Syl l abus) In the case of Gumban as. Gorecho, .b0 phi l ., 80, the attestati on cl ause quoted i n the di ssenti ng opi ni on of ' Jus- ti ce Romual dez read as fol l ows: ,_ "1-- * * That the testator Eustaqui o Hagori l es si gned sai d wi u l n our presence and that we si gned the sai d wi l l i n thu pr"r"rrce or t he t est at or and i n t he presence of each and everyone of us; sai d rvi l l consi sts of ten used pages, i ncrudi ng thi s l ast page.,, The supreme court in denying the probate of the rvill and reversi ng the creci si on appeared from l ai d cl o,,vn the f ol l l vi ng doct ri ne: "An attestati on crause whi ch does not reci te trrat the wi rnesses srgned the wi i l and each and every page thcreof on the reft rnargi n i n the prsr.ce of the testar,or i " defl cti vu, urro- such a defect annurs t he w^l l . ' , In the ease of euinto -'us. I{orata, E4 phil., 4g7, the attestati on cl ause read as fol l cws: "Nosotros l os "1r.e fi rmanros ar fi nar de este testarnento, Fl orenci no Joya, Aguedo so:' i ano y Teodoro Breza damos fe, de haber vi sto o presenci ado et act o de f i rnar en est a escr' i t ura o t est arnert o cl e l os esposos Gregori o puebro y carmen eui nto; ro fi rmaron el ros en nuest ra rresenci a, y qre no: ot ros rcs i esf i gos, ro 5r-amos ; ; ; ". - senci e do cada unc de nosotros, hoy b du ,,o,oi u*bre de rgz0. Este tcstamento est6 cornpuesto de tres foj as fti l es;,, t he cour. t sai d: "As wi l i be noted, the attestati on cl ause contravenes the express : ' eeui rement s of sect i on 6' s of Aet l rro. rg0, u. -; -ended r_ry Act No. 2645, i n two ways: Fi rst, i t fai rs to state tt uu uu.r, and every page of tl ' :e rvi l l rvas si gned by the testators and the wi tnesses; a' rr, seeond, i t fai l s to state that the -wi tnesses *i gn.a each and every page of thc wi l l i n the presence oi the testai or:q,, and in vielv thcreof, affi'rred the decision appeared r,rom . di sal l owi ng the wi l l . contrary, hol ever, tc the doctri ne Iai d doryn i n the above-quoted deci si ons i n the case of Na;,ye ?r,s. Moj al and Agui l ar, 4T Phi l ., rsz, i n whi ci r the attesi ati on crause ,.ui - as f ol l ows: "si gned and decrared by the testator Don Antoni o Moj ar to be hi s l ast rvi l l and t est ament i n t he presence of cach of us, and at t he i ' e{uest of sai d testator Don Antoni o l \Ioi al , *u-.i gred thi s wi l l i n the presence of each other and of the tesi attr. - ' "PEDRo C.rno "SILvEBIo Monco "ZotLo Mesrwes,' 6174 OF'FICIAL GAZtrTTE Vor,. 46, No. lz The Supreme Court sai d: "wi th regard to the rast defect poi nterl out, namery, that the testator does not appear to have si g' ed on ai l the sheets of the wi i l i n the presence of the three wi tnesses, ancl the ratter to have attested and si gned on al l the sheets i n the presence or i l e testator and of each other, i t must be noted that i n the attestati on cl ause above s:t out i t i s sai d that the testator si gned the wi l l ,i n the presence of each of the wi tnesses' and the l atter si gned ,i n i l rc presence of each other and of the testqtor.' so that, as to whether i l re testator and the attesti ng wi tnesses saw each,other si gn the wi i l , .u.h a requi re- 3en-t was cl earl v l "g suffi ci eni l y compl i ed wi th. what i s not stated i n thi s cl ause i s whether the tesi ator and the wi tnesses si gnecr al l the sheets of the wi l l . "The act of t he t est at or ard t he wi t nesses seei ng reci procal l y t he si gni ng oi the wi l l i s one whi ch cannot be proven by the mere exhi bi - t i on of t he wi l l unl ess i t i s st at ed i n t he' document . And t hi s f act i s expressl y stated i n the attestati on cl ausc now before us. But the f act of t he t est at or and t he rvi t ne. rur r. uri "e' . t "". 0 ai l t he sheet s :f_i*:tilT:I^b-" li:l" b{,thu ,nu,," ;;;"tt"";^;; il ;:#;l; ::,1?"9:,1 i::',1*:y u,,ythi.,g about ;hi;; ;J;f ;;:,";:1;:;; n,:t" i: l.:,^^'.n:,^i":t-1-"1 :u':, the.dange" "l ;;;; i;-;htr";;;;;;; whi ch i s what the l aw tri es to avoi d, cl oes not exi st. and the to nor "The order appeal ed frorn i s affi r.med wi th the costs agai nst the appel l ant . So ordered. ' , This was the most liberal construction given by our highest Tribunal to the provisions of article 61g, qf Act 1g0-, re- gardi ng the fai l ure of the atrestati on crause to menti on the fact that the testator and bhe *,itnesses signed each and every page of the wi l i by consi de:i ng .c2i ;1 omi ssi on i nsi g_ ni fi cant and not affecfi ng the val i ci ty of the .vi l l , al th' ugh i n subsequent oeci si ons herei :rabou. *.nti oned, the sup- ' eme court re,zersed i tsel f atc reestabri shed the rormer doctri ne that sti ch omi ssi on was materi al , ancl as such \yas - a sufficient ground on r.vhich the nullity of the will could be predi cated. The attestati on cl ause i n the i nstant case has fai l e.I to mention that fhe rvill to which it was attachecl or pny our. thereof had heen signed by the testatrix, or ilrat ,o*uioJy el se, under h:r expressed request, si gned Lt' name, and that she affixed thei'eto her' thrrmhmark in the presence of eaeh and every one of the r-,,itnesses. It has also failed to mention that the rvitnesses sig/red said rvill a'd every o'e of the pages of r,vhich it consists in the pres.rr.. oi each other end of the testatrix. The omission of these two essential facts to the vatiaity of the rvill renclers the same nul l and voi d. The doctri ne l ai c dor,vn i n the case of Nayve as. Mojal and Ag,rilar, suprr, is not appl i cabl e i n the i nstant case, because the omi ssi on wi th whi ch we are concerl l ed consi si s not oni y i n the fai l ure to state the faci that the testatrix signed each and every one of the pages of r,vhich the lvill .orrsirt., but also in the fact - "Theref ol ' e, as i n t he i nst ant case t l i e f act t hat i . he t est at or the wi tnesses si gned each and every page of the ' ,vi , i s proven by mcre exami nat i on of t he si gnat ures i n t he wi l l , t he omi ssi on expressl y state such evi dent fact docs nob i nval i aut" the wi l l preven+ i ts probate. DncpMsnn, 1950 OF' FICIAL GAZETTE 6175 that she si gned sai d rvi l l i n the presence of the wi tnesses. Moreover, sai d attestati on cl anse fai l ed l i kervi se to men- ti on the fact that the wi tnesses si gned the wi l l i n the presence of each other and of the testatrix, which is ano- ther substanti al omi ssi on to i nval i cl ate the rvi l l . The proponent of the r' i l l tri ed to estabri sh through the wi tnesses Roque Rom, Gregori o Del aganar and cami l o Talam that the testatrix signed each and every one of the t pages of the u' i l l i n thei r presence by causi ng Roque Rom to sign for her and that she affixed her thumbmark with the assistance of Mateo Murillo to each ancl every page of sai d wi l l i r' the presence of each and every one of the wi tnesses who i n turn si gned each ancl every page of the rvi l l i n her presence and i n the presence of each other, over and above the obj ecti on of the attorneys for the opposi tors. Sai d evi dence cannot be tal <en i nto sonsi der- ati on i n accordance wi th the doctri ne l ai d dorvn i n the case of Quinto ?rs. l\forata, supra, to the effect that ,,eviclence al i ,unce ."houl d not be acl nri tted to establ i sh facts not ap- peari ng i n the attestati on cl ause and where such evi dence has been adi ni tted, i t shoul d not be gi ven the effect i n- t ended. " whcrefo'e, the judgment appealed from is hereL'J' af- fi rmed, wi th costs agai nst the appel l ant. Jugo, and De l a Rosa,,.I., concur. Jud,gment affirnted,. [ No. 2655-R. January 19, ; . 949] Tun Pnopr,p oF THE PrrrlrpprNgs, plaintiff and appellee, os. Ana"ra i Uuxal t, accused and apl rel l ant cRrurNnr, Lalv; rlolrrcrnp; Evrneucn; Exrna.ruprcrAl snr,r-spnvrb{c Si atsnmxr or Accusno, Ernocr.-A sel f-servi ng state,nent made extraj udi ci al l y by the accused cannot be used i n hi s favor, but t he i ncri mi nat i ng evi dence cont ai ned t herei n may be avai l abl e of by the prosecuti on. (Peopl e ,us. pi ri ng et al ., SC_G.R. No. 45053, oct . 19, 1936; 2 whart un' s cri mi nal Evi dence, l Lt h ed. , p. 1014. ) l APPEAL from r judgment of the court of First Instance of Sul u. Vi l l al obosi J. The facts are stated,,;fn the opinion of the court. ' ! , : ! Esclepiades V. \Tolbuena for appellant. Soticitor-General Felin Bautista Angelo and Assi,stant Soli,citor'-General Manuel P. Barcelo'na for appeliee. Juco, ,/..' Aitjt Mukili wat acc(Isd of rrcurder before the Court of Fi rst Instance of Sul u and after tri al was found gui l ty of homi ci de and sentenced to suffer from ei ght (8) years of pri si ,6n nl a,Ao?' to fourteen (14) years, ei ght (8) months and one ( 1) da1 of reclusi6n temporal, to indemnify the heitr of the deceased in the sum of P2,000, with the acces- a>