The appellants, Melecio Torres,  Fidel Gervasio, Nicolas Chavez,  Engracio  Varona,  and  Macario  Garillo, were charged in the Court  of First Instance of Cavite  with the crime of forcible abduction with physical injuries.  After due trial, they were found guilty; and Melecio Torres, as the principal culprit, was sentenced to  suffer not less than eight years of prisidn mayor and not more than twelve-years and one day of recltision temporal, while Fidel Gervasio, Nicolas Chavez, Engracio Varona and Macario Garillo, were each sentenced to suffer not less than six years and one day and not more than ten years and one day of prision mayor.  In assessing the penalty to be imposed, the court took into consideration the aggravating circumstances that the crime was committed in the nighttime and by a band.

The facts  which led  to the filing of the information against the appellants are fully set forth in the  decision of the trial court, and it would be a work of supererogation to repeat them here.

Most of the errors assigned both in the brief filed for the appellant Nicolas Chavez and in that for the other appellants, relate to the correctness of the findings of fact made by the trial court.  It is contended that  "the court a  quo erred in not finding it  as a fact that the accused Melecio Torres  had amorous relations with the alleged offended party, Dalisay Bonifacio, previous to the 8th of  November, 1934."  It is also contended that "the court a quo erred in not finding it as a fact that the accused Melecio  Torres and the complainant Dalisay Bonifacio, on November.6, 1934, agreed  to elope on the  8th of November,  1934,  and consequently, that what happened was in reality  a fake abduction." No evidence  was adduced  in  support of these contentions except the testimony of Melecio Torres himself, the truth of  which was challenged by Dalisay Bonifacio when she was called to the witness-stand.  Dalisay Bonifacio, denied having sustained amorous relations with Melecio Torres.  She also  denied having agreed to elope with him.   The circumstances under which the girl was carried away by Melecio Torres and his co-accused were such as to preclude the conclusion that it was done with her consent. If there was  really an  agreement between Melecio  Torres and Dalisay  Bonifacio  to elope,  it  is inconceivable  why they did not select a more auspicious occasion to carry out their  plan.   It  is  likewise  inconceivable  why  Melecio Torres had to secure the assistance of four other men.

Torres' co-accused were sufficiently identified by the witnesses for the prosecution, and their participation in the commission of the crime was duly established.  The  testimony of these witnesses is clear and convincing, while the witnesses for the defense have incurred in serious contradictions.  No motive  whatever was  shown on the part of the prosecution  witnesses that might have induced  them to testify falsely, while the evidence  for the defense comes mostly from interested sources.

Counsel for the appellant  Nicolas Chavez contend that the lower court erred in not granting the latter a separate trial.   The record shows that the application for a separate trial was made after two witnesses for the prosecution had already testified. The application came too late; it should have  been made before the commencement  of the  trial. (U. S. vs. Morales, 8 Phil., 300.)

That there was conspiracy to abduct Dalisay Bonifacio and that Nicolas Chavez  not only had knowledge of, but took part in  the conspiracy, the evidence leaves no  room for a reasonable doubt.  We find no merit in the contention that Nicolas  Chavez had no knowledge of the unchaste designs of Melecio Torres.

One of the points stressed by counsel for appellant Melecio Torres  and others relates to the testimony of Drs. Pablo Anzures, Pedro Matias, and Sancho Rillo concerning the virginity of  the complaining witness.  Apart from the fact that the virginity of the  offended woman is not an essential element of the crime of forcible abduction, medical authorities are by no means agreed that a woman is  not a virgin merely because the  hymen  is not present.   It is claimed by some authorities, upon the basis of clinical observations, that  the hymen is not always present even in a state of undoubted virginity; that sometimes it is torn  away in childhood due to various causes.   We are not inclined to consider the virginity of the complaining witness as a determining factor in this  case.

The crime committed by the appellants is that defined in article 342 of the Revised Penal Code and penalized with reclusion temporal.  In fixing the penalty two aggravating circumstances should be taken into consideration: Namely, (1)  that the crime was committed in the nighttime, and (2)  by a  band.  In the absence  of any mitigating circumstance, the penalty prescribed should be imposed in its maximum  period, or from seventeen  years, four months and  one day to twenty years of reclusion temporal.  Pursuant to the provisions of the Indeterminate Sentence Law, Melecio Torres is hereby sentenced to suffer not less than eight years of prision mayor and not more than seventeen years, four months and one day of reclusion temporal.   Fidel Gervasio, Nicolas Chavez, Engracio Varona, and  Macario Garillo, are each sentenced to suffer not less than six years and  one day of prisidn mayor, and not more than seventeen years, four months and one day of reclusion ternporal.

Modified as  above indicated, the  judgment  is  affirmed with costs  against the appellants.   So ordered.

Hull, Vickers, Diaz, and Recto,JJ., concur.