The only contention on this  appeal.is that the testimony of the witnesses for the prosecution  does not establish the guilt of the accused, because, as counsel insists, these witnesses were not worthy of credence.  The trial judge who saw and heard them testify thought otherwise, and there is nothing in the record which would justify us in holding that he erred in that regard.  On the contrary, the story told by these witnesses is convincing and satisfactory, and has all the earmarks of the truth.  It is simple, straightforward, consistent, not inherently improbable, and the statements of each of the witnesses corroborates and forcefully bears out that of the others in all important details, except only the testimony of one witness who said that while he remembered seeing the accused in and  around the place where the game of monte was in progress, he could not remember seeing him actually take part in the game.  But this was by no means in conflict with the direct evidence of the other witnesses, who swore that they saw him participate in the game.  On the contrary, it corroborated them so far as it went.

The accused called no witnesses to the stand to contradict, explain, or put in doubt the truth of the evidence submitted by the prosecution, and we are of opinion that the guilt of the accused was established at the trial beyond a reasonable doubt.

The judgment of conviction and the sentence imposed in this case by the trial court should therefore be, and are hereby, affirmed, with the costs of this instance against the appellant.

Arellano, C. J., Torres, Johnson, Moreland, and Trent, JJ., concur.