The evidence of record fully  sustains the findings of fact by the learned trial judge  as set out in his opinion in this case, which is as follows:

"Agaton Ner  and Valeriano Reus, the above-named defendants, are charged with  having committed fraud in order to insure their winning a cockfight which took place in the pit  in the  barrio of  Concepcion, Atimonan, Tayabas, on the  10th day of April, 1910.

"The trial was had at Atimonan on  the 24th of August, 1910.

"From the proofs submitted by the prosecution the court finds and declares to  have  been duly proven the following facts: That Valeriano Reus  and Agaton Ner, without authority from  Florentina Ledin,  the owner of a gamecock, giraw in color,  which was matched against another, mayahin in color, and pretending to be authorized by the said owner and while she was absent,  some moments before the  fight, removed  the knife-edged gaff from the bird belonging to Florentina  and replaced it  in an entirely different manner from  that in which it was before, which act only became known to Florentina after the fight.

"That Florentina Ledin especially charged Quirico Saniel with the  duty of attaching the gaff to her gamecock, but that after he  had put it on Valeriano Reus and Agaton Ner came up to him, and after Valeriano had taken off the gaff, Agaton Ner then replaced it in his own way.   According to Saniel, witness  for  the prosecution, the  accused placed it with the point very much elevated, which made it necessary to increase the heel, and with the blade  far out, which fact was called to the attention of the said Agaton Ner, but he paid no attention to it.

"It was proven that Quirico Saniel, as well as the accused, are professional gaff-placers for fighting cocks.  And it was also shown to the satisfaction of the court that in view of the way the gamecock belonging to Florentina Ledin was fixed, it could not inflict mortal wounds and could not kill its opponent;  and that the gamecock  of  Florentina Ledin was a good one, a fighter, and that in the fight it struck the mqyahin first  several  times  without  being able to inflict any serious wound, and that the mayahin when it attacked the  bird belonging to Florentina succeeded in killing it, for which reason the latter and her son,  Jose Laureo, lost their respective bets of P100 and P82.

"The witness, Fortunate Acufia, astonished at the way the giraw struck home so many times  without mortally wounding its opponent, examined the gaff after the fight and found that it was badly placed and inquired who put it on that way. Then it was that the act of the accused became known and  was communicated to Florentina.  She, although she paid the bets, made a protest to the betting master (casador de apuestas).

"It was further proven that Fortunato Acufia is also a gaff-placer, although he  does not  now work at the trade because two of his fingers are useless. It was also satisfactorily shown that the placing of the gaff is a matter of capital importance and that, according  to the way in which they are put on, they are either effective or of no service whatever.  That when the point is much elevated and the blade  turned out, only slight wounds can  be  inflicted. (Declaration of the accused Agaton Ner.)

"The witness Francisco Diaz, who testified for the defense, stated that he has been putting on  such gaffs for twelve years, and that  when the gamecocks were turned loose the gaff on the giraw was much elevated.   He was the man who let fly the birds.

"It  was also  proven that  Agaton  Ner,  at the moment the fight began, crossed his bets and laid  a  wager on the mayahin against the giraw whose gaff had been taken  off and  replaced by him, and it is to be noted that when the bets were first being made they were in favor of the giraw, because he was the favorite, but the moment the birds were let fly at each other, the other one, the mayahin, became the favorite, although his owner, Camilo Vice, had  only backed him  with P15.

"From the facts as proven, the court finds and declares that Agaton Ner is guilty of the crime defined  and penalized in paragraph 2 of article 534, read together with paragraph 8 of  article 535 of the Penal Code.

"But the cause  is otherwise with  respect  to Valeriano Reus, for, although there are some indications, the evidence is insufficient to  prove his guilt, there  being no proof of his intention or  direct participation, nor with respect to his bets, and he is entitled to the benefit of reasonable doubt.

"The defendant, Agaton Ner,  endeavored  to prove his innocence  by witnesses,  but the latter contradicted  themselves and testified in such a manner that they were unable to change  the opinion formed by the court  with respect to preponderance of the evidence adduced by the prosecution over that of the defense.

"Therefore, and taking  into consideration  the  abovementioned articles and others applicable, the court is of the opinion that  the accused Agaton Ner should  be sentenced to four months and one day of arresto mayor, to the accessories  of the law, and  to indemnify  Florentina  Ledin  in the sum of P100 and her son, Jose Laureo, in  the sum  of P82, and in case of insolvency to suffer one month and ten days more of subsidiary imprisonment, and to pay one-half of the costs of this instance.

"The other defendant, Valeriano Reus, is acquitted, with the other half of the costs de oficio, and the bond given to insure his liberty shall be canceled.

"The clerk of the court will notify the accused, in the absence of the court, and shall make entry thereof on the record.  And, in case of an appeal, he is authorized, with the concurrence of the fiscal, to approve the bond required to assure the liberty of the appellant, which is hereby fixed at P800."

Article 534 of the Penal Code is as follows:

"A person who shall defraud another in  the  substance, quantity, or quality of things he may deliver to him,  by virtue of an obligation, shall be punished:

"1. With the penalty of arresto mayor in its minimum and medium degrees if the fraud should not exceed 250 pesetas in amount.

"2. With that of arresto  mayor in  its medium  degree to presidio correccional in its minimum degree if it should exceed 250 pesetas and not be more than 6,250 pesetas.

"3. With that of presidio correccional in its minimum and medium degrees if it should exceed 6,250 pesetas."

Article 535, subsection 8, of the Penal Code is as follows: "The following shall incur the penalities of the preceding articles:

"8. Those  who shall employ fraud in gaming (juego), in order to insure winning."

The gentle art of cockfighting, and the elusive game  of backing one's judgment therein with coin of the  realm not being prohibited in these Islands,  when indulged in under prescribed conditions  and in  duly licensed cockpits, the facts as found in the opinion of the trial judge undoubtedly sustain his conclusion  that the appellant in  this case was guilty of that kind  of sharp  practice which constitutes the crime of estafa, defined and  penalized in the above set out provisions of the Penal Code.

We find no errors in the proceedings prejudicial to the rights of the accused.   The judgment of conviction and the sentence imposed in the court below should, therefore, be affirmed with the costs of this instance against the appellant. So ordered.

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

Moreland, J., dissents.