THE UNITED STATES, PLAINTIFF AND APPELLEE, VS. MARIANO LOPEZ, DEFENDANT AND APPELLANT.

The evidence of record conclusively establishes the guilt of the defendant
and appellant of the crime of robbery in an armed band, of which he was
convicted in the court below, and we find no error in the proceedings
prejudicial to the substantial rights of the accused.

Counsel for appellant insists that the evidence as to the identity of this
appellant as one of the band of robbers who committed the crime charged in the
complaint is not sufficient to sustain a judgment of conviction. This defendant,
however, was positively identified by the complaining witness, who recognized
both his face and his voice. Immediately after the band left his house, he made
complaint to the concejal of his barrio, and named the appellant as one
of the band, saying that although this accused and one other stayed below while
three of the party went up into the house, he recognized him as he passed
through a ray of light from the lamp upstairs, and by the sound of his voice.
The wife of the complaining witness also positively identified appellant by the
sound of his voice downstairs. Appellant was also fully identified as one of the
band by the boatman who brought them from the tienda of appellant to a
point not far from the place where the crime was committed. It is not quite
clear whether or not this witness was himself one of the band of robbers, or
whether he was merely employed by the band to bring them to the scene of the
crime. But however this may be, his testimony corroborating and corroborated by
the positive testimony of the victims of the robbery, leaves no room for doubt
as to the identity of this appellant as one of the band of armed robbers who
committed the crime.

Much is made by counsel as to the possibility of mistake on the part of the
witnesses in undertaking to identify appellant by the sound of his voice. But as
we have said, there is other conclusive testimony of his identity in the record,
and the identification by the sound of his voice is merely corroborative of that
evidence.

A motion for a new trial was made in this court, based on several vague,
indefinite and unsatisfactory affidavits in which affiants express their belief
that appellant did not leave his barrio on the night of the robbery. There is
nothing in these affidavits which would justify us in believing that the
introduction of the testimony of these witnesses on a new trial would put in
doubt the positive, definite and convincing testimony now in the record as to
the identity of this appellant. There is no ground therefore for the allowance
of a new trial.

The judgment entered in the court below convicting and sentencing this
appellant should therefore be affirmed, with the costs of this instance against
him. So ordered.

Arellano, C. J., Torres, Johnson, Moreland, and Araullo,
JJ., concur.