The facts in this case are very similar to those in the case of United States vs, Dacquel (36 Phil. Rep., 781) recently decided, and despite the exhaustive analysis of the evidence by counsel de officio, in an attempt to raise a doubt as to the credibility of the witnesses for the prosecution, we are satisfied that the findings of the trial judge in this regard should not be disturbed.

There is no ground for the contention that the information signed by the fiscal should have been supported by the oath of that officer attached thereto. While the statute defines complaints as sworn statements, there is no requirement that informations must be supported by the oath of the officer signing them this, doubtless, because informations are filed by the law officers of the government charged with a special duty in regard thereto, and acting under the responsibility of their oaths of office. (U. S. vs. Bibal, 4 Phil. Rep., 369; U. S. vs. Ago-Chi, 6 Phil. Rep., 227; General Orders No. 58, sec. 5.)

We find no error in the proceedings prejudicial to the substantial rights of the accused, and we conclude that the judgment appealed from should be affirmed, with the costs of this instance against the appellant. So ordered.

Arellano, C. J., Araullo, Street, and Malcolm, JJ., concur.

Judgment affirmed.