This is an appeal from  a judgment of the Court of First Instance  of  the city of  Manila,  Hon.  James  C. Jenkins presiding, convicting the defendants of the crime of arson and sentencing each one of them to ten years and one day of presidio mayor, with the accessory  penalties prescribed in article  57 of the  Penal Code,  to pay one-half the costs and to indemnify, jointly and severally, the Manila Cockpit Company  in the sum of P80.

On the 6th day of August, 1909, there were two cockpits, one old and the other newly erected,  situated in the municipality of  Caloocan, Province of Rizal, but within the police limits of the city of Manila.   Between 9.30 and  10 o'clock of the night of that day the  new cockpit  was feloniously set on fire.

The witness Bartolome Buenaventura testified that he knew both of the accused, Juan  Lipia being his uncle, and that he had known them since he was a boy; that he knew the cockpits in question and their location; that on  the 4th of August he  was  planting rice when Ceferino Benitez came and called him;  that Ceferino Benitez asked him to go along with him to burn the new cockpit; that the witness replied that he was  not disposed to go because he had his own business to attend to; that the  next day, the 5th, the witness went over to  Ceferino's house to get  a bolo that he had bought from him, when Ceferino again spoke to him  about burning the new cockpit; that the witness still objected and told him that he did not want to go with him; that on the 6th Ceferino waited for the witness on a certain road and  spoke to him again, saying that he wanted him to go with him to  burn the  new cockpit that night; that the witness still refused to go because,  as he alleged, it was not right, in the first place, and,  in the  second place, he was afraid of  the owners of the new cockpit; that after being threatened by Ceferino he finally consented to go  with him; that Ceferino also told him that he would be well paid for it'; that on asking him how much they were to receive, he replied P500; that the witness asked, who is going to pay that sum,  and  he replied,  Pedro  Casimiro;  that he went with them on the evening of the 6th; that prior to their going they agreed how the cockpit was to be burned; that they arrived at the cockpit between 9.30 and 10.30 o'clock; that the witness told the accused that it would be better to wait until they had the money before they burned the cock- pit; that they replied that as soon as the cockpit started to burn there would be some one who would get the money from Juana, a widow, who was a shareholder in the cockpit; that the arrangement was to pour petroleum on the cockpit; that the two accused were to  go on one side of the cockpit and the witness  on the other;  that the two accused carried a bottle of petroleum with them as, according to the plan, these two were to set fire to the same side of the cockpit; that they both carried  matches;  that  they  arrived at the outside of the fence of the cockpit and the witness told them that they should take one side and he would take the other,  so  that the fire  could  be started in two different places  at  once;  that the two accused broke through the fence and threw the petroleum on the cockpit and touched a match to the oil that  was running down; that  when the fire was started by  the accused  the  witness  had not yet broken through  the fence on  his side; that, seeing the fire burning brightly, he took  fear and ran away;  that  their agreement was to meet at the house  of Ceferino the next morning; that the cockpit was only partly destroyed; that he met the accused the next morning and asked them about the money they  were to get for burning the cockpit; that the accused told  him  that they received only P20; that they showed him the money; that they gave him P10; that the witness later tried to get more money from the accused but did not succeed.

The  witness Alejandro Nagua testified that he was acquainted with Ceferino  Benitez and Juan  Lipia, and had known them for some years prior to the 6th  day of August, the date on which the cockpit in question was set on fire; that on the night of the said 6th of August he was out in the fields catching snipe; that  he had as  his companion Ambrosio Alipio; that he was  hunting  near where the cockpit was located; that the witness suddenly saw a light at  the cockpit and after observing a  moment and noting that it was on fire, he  and his companion hurried toward the place; that when they arrived  near the  building they saw Ceferino Benitez and Juan Lipia going in the direction of Masambong, running.

The testimony of the last  witness  was corroborated  by Ambrosio Alipio, his companion.

Juan  Alipio testified  that  he was the caretaker of the cockpit on the night it  was burnt and  had been such for some time  prior thereto; that he  was  awakened  in the nighttime by the fire; that there was  no lamp or other fire in or around the cockpit  during  that  night; that the following morning they found the fence broken through and a petroleum bottle with shoestrings  tied about it; that six stakes were pulled off the fence near the place where the fire was  ignited and two near the  water-closet.

Anastasia   Martin,  wife  of Bartolome Buenaventura, testified that the accused Ceferino  Benitez had told her that if  her husband Bartolome would turn  his back on  that matter  of the fire,  Pedro  Casimiro would pay him any amount he wanted;  that she told her husband what Ceferino had said.

Lucio de Guzman, a witness for the  prosecution, testified that he was a resident of the  barrio of Balintawak, municipality of Caloocan,  and by occupation a farmer; that he had known  Juan  Lipia and  Ceferino  Benitez  since  his boyhood;  that before the fire  he  had  a  conversation with Ceferino Benitez  in the presence of Jua.n Lipia; that  they asked him to go with  them to assist them  in burning the cockpit and stated to him that they would  get P500;  that later they again invited him to assist them; that the witness declined to implicate himself in the crime.

On cross-examination  this witness testified that he had been arrested for taking part in what he called the revolt of 1903 and sentenced to five years in Bilibid;  and that the charge against him was  bandolerismo.

In his opinion, forming the basis of his judgment of  conviction, the learned trial court says:

"Eight or nine apparently credible witnesses testified for the prosecution.   Their evidence fully  and  indubitably establishes the guilt of the two accused substantially as alleged.  The court is  satisfied  to  a reasonable  certainty and  beyond a reasonable doubt  that the two accused are guilty substantially as  alleged in the information and the court so finds.

"If the two witnesses who swore positively that on the night of the 6th of August, 1909, they were out snipe hunting,  and saw the  two accused coming from the direction of the cockpit alleged to have been fired by the accused, stated the  truth,  then the alleged  defense falls to  the ground, independent of the testimony of  the several other credible witnesses for  the  prosecution.   The  court  gives entire credence to the testimony of  these two witnesses,  the snipe hunters, and there was nothing in their demeanor or that of any other witness for the prosecution  that indicates in any  way that they were on the stand to tell anything but the truth.  There are no indicia that they or either of them had  any motive   whatever to swear falsely  against  the accused."

In a  conflict of testimony  such as is presented  in this case, this court must depend to a considerable extent upon the  discernment  of the judge who sits  at the  trial.  A careful  and discriminating trial  judge  has unequaled advantages in determining the relative credibility of opposing witnesses.  If he exercises his faculties with shrewdness and  sagacity, he  performs a most  valuable work for the appellate court.   We have considered this case in  a  very painstaking manner.  We have searched the record for any evidence indicating that the learned trial court was mistaken in his judgment  as to  the relative  credibility of the witnesses or that he  had overlooked  some fact or circumstance of weight or influence in passing  upon the evidence, or that he had misinterpreted the significance of the facts as proved. We  have been unable  to  find from  the record  that  the learned trial court has  fallen into such error; and, in accordance with the rule  which we have so often laid down, namely, that this  court will not interfere with the judgment of the trial court in passing upon  the  relative credibility of opposing  witnesses  unless  there  appears in the record some fact or circumstance of weight  and influence which has  been overlooked or its  significance  misinterpreted  by him, we decline to interfere with the judgment of the trial court upon the facts in this case.

The penalty in this  case is extremely severe.   The  injury done to the building  was no more than P80.   It was not a  dwelling  house,  although a family  happened to  be living  in it at the time.  It  is unmistakable, however, that the crime committed falls within the  provisions of article 550, subdivision  2, and article  551, subdivision  1, Penal Code, and these  articles fix for said crime the penalty  of presidio  mayor.   There being  present  the aggravating circumstance of nocturnity and no extenuating circumstance, the penalty must be imposed in the maximum degree.

The penalty imposed by  the learned trial  court being within the law and the facts  fully  substantiating his  conclusions, the  judgment  is  affirmed,  with costs against the appellants.

Arellano, C. J,, Mapa, Carson, and  Trent, JJ., concur.