This is an appeal taken  by the Igorrot Olasan from the judgment of the Court of First Instance of Bontoc, Mountain Province, finding him  guilty of the crime of homicide and  sentencing him  to imprisonment  for the  term of twenty years  reclusion temporal, with the accessory  penalties  prescribe by  law, to indemnify  the heirs of the deceased Dalmacio Gasalao in the  sum  of  P1,000 and to pay one-half of the costs, by virtue of a  complaint  filed by the fiscal charging him, together with  another Igorrot named Mayawen, with the  crime of murder; but the latter was acquitted  with one-half of the costs de oficio.

In support  of his appeal, the  appellant  Olasan assigns the following  errors as committed  by the lower court, to wit:

1. The  court erred in holding that  "The circumstantial evidence in this cause, in the opinion  of this court,  establishes  the  undeniable fact that Olasan was the  very  person who wounded Dalmacio Gasalao  *  *   *"   (dec. page 2) on which it based its judgment.
   
   
2. The  court erred  in holding that  "the fact  that the accused Olasan had  been  heard shouting  just  after the occurrence and that his father held a 'sangkat'  the night following the  day of the occurrence, warning  those  who attended said  'sangkat' composed of old people, that  they should not reveal that Olasan had killed the man, as under the special circumstances of  the case it would not be at all improper to attribute to similar acts a probatory value which is usually attributed to res gestse  *   *   *."  (Dec. pages  5,  6.)
   
   
3. The lower court erred in holding and admitting in its judgment that the body  found by  the  witness  Antonio Crispillo was the same person  who in life was called Dalmacio Gasalao.

The  following facts  were established beyond a reasonable  doubt at the trial: The Igorrot Ofoob and the Ilocano Dalmacio Gasalao  were mail  carriers.  In the afternoon of January 16, 1925, they left Bontoc together carrying mail for Camp Ambolig, municipal district of Anabel, Mountain Province. As it was getting late the Igorrot Ofoob went on ahead of  his companion arriving at Camp Ambolig between  4.30 and 5  o'clock  on the same afternoon.  Seeing that  the sun had set and tha Dalmacio Gasalao had not yet arrived at the camp, Ofoob suggested to one Filomin, a road worker, that they  start up  the road and meet his  companion.  After walking for some  time Ofoob  discovered bloodstains on the  road and suspected that his companion Dalmacio Gasalao had been killed.  Fearing that he might meet the same fate as his companion and  noticing that the road worker carried an Igorrot axe called "alioa," he suggested to him  that he return  to  Camp  Ambolig  and guard  the mail and that  he would return to Bontoc  and report  what had occurred, which  he did.  Ofoob arrived at the  house of his master, Mr. Belen,  in Tococan, shortly after dark and the latter immediately reported the matter to the  constabulary.   That same  night  some constabulary  soldiers,  under the  command of  Lieutenant Torres, accompanied by Deputy Governor Blanco and sanitary inspector Crispillo of Bontoc, proceeded  to the place of the occurrence.  After having searched  all night,  at  about 7 o'clock the following morning, they discovered the  body lying at the  bottom of  a precipice alongside the road near the  place where they saw the bloodstains, with the  head downward and the feet turned upward.  Upon  examining the body they discovered a sharp wound just a little above the angle formed by the neck and the right shoulder, which extended from  the back towards the front in a  downward direction, cutting two-thirds of the neck and severing the muscles, arteries, nerves, trachea, esophagus, and the fourth cervical vertebrae.  Contusions were also found on the right parietal  region  and on  the left thigh.  About  20 yards from the place where they discovered the bloodstains they found the cane,  Exhibit A.

It appears that on the afternoon of the  occurrence Olasan and Mayawen were seen sitting on a bridge about 2½ kilometers from  the place where the bloodstains were discovered, Mayawen holding the cane, Exhibit A in his hand and Olasan  holding  an "alioa" (head axe)  in front of him. Later in the afternoon Olasan was seen coming along the road which lead  to the spot where the occurrence took place.

It further  appears that  on  the  following  night the Igorrot Macayba, the  aged father of the  accused  Olasan, invited  his old neighbors to eat dog and chicken in celebration  of the  heroic deed of his son  Olasan, who  had killed an Ilocano. During the feast he forbade the members present  not to mention anything of what had  occurred, because the Government prohibited the killing  of  a man, and  he  gave them  warning that if they did so  he would kill them.  Olasan  was present during the  feast but did not partake of  any food,  the  Igorrot custom permitting only the old people  to eat.

The accused Olasan, when testifying in his own defense, denied  having  killed  Dalmacio Gasalao.  The defense called attention  to  certain contradictions  which had occurred in the testimony with regards to what  was eaten and  what was  said at the feast,  from which  might be gathered that no celebration had taken place.

From a reading of the stenographic manuscript it may be noted that much difficulty was experienced in interpreting the testimony of the Igorrot witnesses.  There were times when the witness did not understand the question of the interpreter and  there were times when  the interpreter  did not understand  the  testimony  of the witness, so that  on Various  occasions the judge had to order the witness  to  answer,  he having given  a  reply  entirely foreign to the  question.

We know, from experience,  that  in translating, orally, a declaration also made orally, errors and omissions are committed that often escape the attention of the judge and the parties, particularly when he does not understand the dialect interpreted, as, for instance, in the present case. All of the witnesses who attended said feast unanimously agreed on what took  place and the reason for the celebration as mentioned by the witness Macayba, the father of the accused Olasan.

Now, then, is this evidence sufficient for finding, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the accused Olasan is the person who killed the Ilocano  Dalmacio Gasalao?  The fact that Olasan, carrying an "alioa"  (head axe) a short time before the occurrence took place, was at the bridge 2½ kilometers from  the scene of the crime,  the fact that some time after he came along the road which  lead to the spot where the occurrence  took place,  the fact that  the wound which was found at the base of the  neck of  the deceased  and which caused his death was inflicted by an "alioa," the fact that on the night following the occurrence, true to Igorrot traditions to celebrate the killing of an enemy or  a Christian by a member of the family or one of the tribe, Macayba celebrated, with a feast for the  old people, the heroic deed of his son Olasan who had killed a  Christian Ilocano,  and the fact  that Olasan  himself was present and enjoyed the feast  given in his honor, convince the court that the herein appellant is responsible  for the death of Dalmacio  Gasalao.

In  view of the above, we are of the  opinion that the judgment appealed from must be, and is hereby,  affirmed in all its parts, with  the costs against the appellant.   So ordered.

Avanceña, C. J., Street, Villamor, Ostrand, Johns,  and Romualdez,  JJ., concur.