This is an appeal from a judgment of the Court of First Instance of the Province of Iloilo, the Hon.  J. S. Powell presiding, convicting the defendant of the crime of perjury and sentencing him to two years of  imprisonment and to pay the costs of the action.

The prosecution of  this case arises from the testimony given by the accused in the case of U. S.  vs.  Quebengco (18 Phil. Rep., 447), which was a prosecution for the seduction of  a young lady by the defendant,  brought about  by a fictitious marriage ceremony between  them performed by a brother of the defendant on the 27th  day of October,  1909. In  that action the accused in the present  case testified as a witness that he was  in company with the brother of Jose Quebengco, who performed  the marriage ceremony proved in the seduction case, during the whole day of the 27th of October, the day on which the said marriage ceremony took place, and that the said brother of Jose Quebengco did not perform any such marriage ceremony on said  day.

It having been ascertained that the testimony given by the accused as a witness in behalf of the  defendant in the seduction  case was  false, the information in this case was presented against him and  he  was prosecuted thereunder.

The guilt  of  the  defendant  is  proved  overwhelmingly. He himself, testifying as witness in  his own behalf, substantially  admits the  falsity  of  his previous  testimony. Every essential element of perjury is present.

Counsel for the appellant alleges two errors.  The first one is that the judge erred in denying  the application of the accused that he be tried before another court  by reason of an  alleged prejudice against the defendant on the part of the trial court.  The only ground presented by the defendant for the alleged prejudice is the fact that said court, on the trial of the seduction case  against Quebengco, became satisfied that the accused in this  case  committed  perjury and, therefore, ordered the fiscal to present an information against him if he could obtain sufficient evidence.  This in no  sense disqualified the judge.  If a trial judge is convinced that a witness in any case before him is deliberately, willfully and  corruptly swearing falsely on  a  material matter, it is not only his right but it is his duty to see that such witness is duly prosecuted.  Men's lives and property are wholly insecure in a community where perjury is prevalent.  If a court  can not believe the witnesses  who testify before him, then his judgment is  but a guess and real justice is impossible.  There is nothing more fatal to justice than a corrupt witness.   The learned trial court performed his duty when he ordered the prosecution  of the accused.

The second and last assignment of error is that the court erred in finding  the accused guilty of the crime  charged. As we  have already said, the proofs demonstrate beyond a reasonable  doubt that  the accused  is guilty of the  crime  of perjury and that the court would have been  remiss in its duty in making any other finding.

The  judgment appealed  from is hereby affirmed, with costs against the appellant.

Torres, Mapa, Johnson,  and Carson, JJ.., concur.