This is an appeal from a judgment of the Court of First Instance of the Province of Pangasinan, Hon. Isidro Paredes presiding, convicting the appellants of murder and sentencing each of them to cadena perpetua, with the corresponding accessories, to the payment of  an indemnity of P500 and the costs of the trial.  The accused, Juan Oracion, died pending the appeal.

It appears from the evidence in this case that on or about the 13th day of January, 1910, an old man by the name of Juan Tamudong was riding on  his banquilla on a river in the municipality of Dagupan, in the Province of Pangasinan, when he  was met  by the two accused in this  case, Juan Oracion and Nicolas Lambino, riding in another banquilla, who invited him to enter their banquilla and go with them. He accepted their invitation and they immediately started across the river to a place where Carlos Moyano kept a house for  the sale  of tuba. Arriving there they met not only Carlos  Moyano  but also Victoriano Jaramillo (alias Atong).   The accused invited Jaramillo to go with them, stating that they would find better  tuba in another place. In  response to their request, Jaramillo embarked with the other three in the same banquilla, and the four proceeded to a locality known as Aliuecuec.  Arriving there, the four disembarked and started into the nipa forest which covered all  of the locality thereabouts.  Arriving in an out-of-the-way place, where they were entirely free from observation and discovery, each one  of the accused suddenly seized an arm of Jaramillo,  holding  him  tightly so  that he could neither escape nor move effectively.   In this condition Nicolas  Lambino drew  his bolo and struck Jaramillo three blows, which, in addition to causing  other wounds, severed his head from his body.  Thereupon the accused took the corpse and carried it to another place a little distance away and left it lying on the ground.  They then quitted the place in the same manner in which they had come to it.

These facts were given in the testimony of Juan Tamudong, the only witness, aside  from the accused themselves, who saw the  commission of the crime.   His testimony is strongly corroborated  (a)  by the testimony of Carlos Moyano, who,  as a witness, stated that he saw  the accused arrive there at his tuba-house in a banquilla with the witness Tamudong; that they found there the deceased Jaramillo; that they talked with him and invited him to go with them; that each one  of them carried a bolo;  (b) by the  fact that the corpse of  Jaramillo was found in the exact place indicated  by  the witness  Tamudong, and  that the wounds inflicted upon the body  of the deceased were substantially as described by the witness; (c) by the fact of the identification of the body and the declaration of the wife of the deceased, who, testifying as a witness,  stated that her husband left the house in the morning of the day in question, saying that he must go to the tuba store kept by Carlos Moyano, and that she had not since seen him alive.

The defense of the accused  was an  alibi.   Upon  this branch  of the case  the learned trial court says:

"The  accused attempted to establish an alibi, but such alibi can not be admitted for the reason that not one of the witnesses of the accused told the truth.  It is absurd to assert that there were typhoons and storms in  any part of the municipality of Dagupan  on the 13th day of January of this year.  It is a  greater  absurdity for the accused to say that they  did not know of any place called Aliuecuec, when  this place, according to the proofs, is within the limits of the barrio of Anolid, of which barrio  the accused, Juan Oracion, had been teniente  concejal for  four years.  It is easy to instruct witnesses to testify alike, but the credibility of such  witnesses does not depend upon their number or the coincidence of  their statements."

A careful reading of the evidence leads us to the belief that the learned trial court properly weighed the  evidence in regard to the alleged defense.  Two witnesses whose credibility has not been impeached testified clearly and positively, the one that he saw the deceased go away with the accused in the direction of the place where his dead body was subsequently found,  and  saw them return  without him;  the other, that he actually saw the accused commit the murder. The testimony of the accused and their  witnesses, tending to show that  they were at a different place  during all the hours of  the day  on  which  the crime  was  committed, produced a conflict in the testimony which had to be resolved by the trial court.   He saw the witnesses  in  the act of testifying,  carefully observed their manner and  attitude; he  weighed their testimony  together with all  the circumstances of  the case and arrived at the conclusion that the testimony of the witnesses for the prosecution was entitled to credit.   We find nothing in the record  or in the facts and circumstances which go to make up the history of this case from which we can  say that the conclusion of the learned trial court  was wrong.  If there were reason to do so, we would not hesitate a moment  in so declaring.  On the  other hand, when there is absolutely  nothing to  indicate such error, we must just as strongly insist that we will not inter- fere with the conclusion reached.

The learned trial court qualified the  crime  as murder, using alevosia for that purpose.   We are of  the opinion that he was right.   (U. S. vs. Feria, 2 Phil. Rep., 54; U. S. vs. Reyes, 11 Phil. Rep., 225; U. S. vs. De  Leon, 1 Phil. Rep., 163; U. S. vs.  Abelinde, 1 Phil. Rep., 568; U. S. vs. Ricafor, 1 Phil. Rep.; 173; U. S. vs. Santos, 2 Phil. Rep., 453;  U. S. vs. Babasa, 2  Phil.  Rep., 102; U. S. vs.  De Silva, 14 Phil. Rep., 413.)

The judgment appealed from must be affirmed.  (U. S. vs. Cabe, 1 Phil. Rep., 265; U. S. vs. Dacotan, 1  Phil.  Rep., 669; U. S. vs. Cruz, 4 Phil. Rep., 438; U.  S. vs. De Leon, 1 Phil. Rep., 163.)   So ordered.

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