On November 16, I960, Lorenzo Go alias Lorenzo Chua, petitioner-appellee herein, presented with the CFI of Misamis Occidental, a petition for Naturalization, containing all the jurisdictional allegations, and accompanied by a Joint Affidavit of Maximo Lago and Vitaliano Jimenez, who appeared as character witnesses. Against this petition, an Opposition was registered by the Republic, it appearing that petitioner stated in his petition that his income was only P150.00 per month. After trial, the lower court rendered judgment, the pertinent portions of which recite: 

"The evidence further shows that the petitioner was born in Ozamiz City on November 14, 1939, and has continuously resided in Ozamiz City up to the present time; that the petitioner has been employed as salesman since May, 1900, receiving a salary of P1,800.00 annually, being single; *****.   

"Considering, therefore, that the petitioner has all the qualifications and none of the disqualifications to become Filipino citizen, judgment is hereby rendered declaring that the petitioner is entitled to acquire Philippine citizenship and as soon as this decision shall have become final and executory in accordance with the Paredes Law and upon previous hearing that he has complied with all the conditions and requisites under said law, lie shall be allowed to take his oath of allegiance and fidelity to the Philippine Republic and thereafter the Clerk of Court shall issue in his favor letters or certificate of citizenship. 

The above judgment was appealed by the Solicitor General on two (2) counts, to wit: the lower court erred in granting the petition, because   

(1) petitioner's income does not measure up to the minimum standard of lucrative income as fixed by the Supreme Court; and

(2) petitioner's ability to speak and write English and one of the principal Philippine languages has not been duly proven by actual demonstration in Court.

of hair recovered at the exhumation could not be presented, having been locked in the constabulary storeroom and, according to Sergeant Cureg, might have been eaten by ants or by house lizards.

Pascua and Sulio testified that they knew the rifle used in the killing to belong to Bonifacio Tolete, although he had no license for it. As far as they could tell, the motive for the crime was an incident which occurred between Modesto Antonio and Porfirio Gabiran. on April 11, 1955, two days before it was committed. The truck was going to the logging area and had to cross a portion of the road where Porfirio was digging a canal wherein to lay the water pipes. He asked Antonio to pass by another trail so that the canal would not have to be refilled with earth and then dug anew after the truck had passed, but Antonio refused. An altercation ensued as a result. When he left the place Antonio said that Gabiran "would have his day." On that occasion Tolete did not have his rifle with him.

The defense assails the veracity of Prudencio Pascua and Francisco Sulio, and stresses the fact that they kept silent for more than one year. They explained, however, that they were afraid to reveal what they knew because of the threat uttered by appellants. Besides, they did not wish to be implicated, as indeed they could be on the basis of their version of the incident, and as in fact they were included in the information filed in court. We find nothing in their testimony for us to suspect that they had made a story out of whole truth. There was no reason for them to do and cause a false indictment for murder to be lodged against two persons who had given them work and from whom they had admittedly received considerable benefits.

The defense ascribes several motives to these two witnesses for testifying as they did: first, they were reprimanded for getting pieces of lumber from the sawmill without permission; second, they suffered deductions in their wages for some tools they had lost; and third, Bonifacio Tolete refused to give them a lift on his truck when he went in it to Pangasinan. The first two could not have created any serious resentment in them at all, for in spite of what they had done they were permitted to continue working in the sawmill. And the third was much Loo flimsy and too far removed in time from August J956, to have moved Prudencio Pascua and Francisco Sulio then to avenge the slight to their request by concocting a tale which, strangely enough, would implicate Tolete loss that it would Modesto Antonio.

Appellants' denial of the commission of the offense and of many other matters brought out by the prosecution, and their own versions of their respective activities during the times material to this case cannot, in our judgment, prevail over the testimony of the two witnesses who were not only present at the killing but also by subsequent acts cooperated in hiding the crime. Everything considered, we are convinced that the guilt of appellants, Modesto Antonio as principal and Bonifacio Tolete as accessory after the fact, has been proven beyond reasonable doubt.

The judgment appealed from is affirmed, with costs.

Bengzon, C. J., Padilla, Bautista Angelo, Labrador, Conception, Reyes, J. B. L., Barrera, Paredes, and Dizon, JJ., concur.

Judgment affirmed.