THE UNITED STATES, PLAINTIFF AND APPELLEE, VS. SATURNINO AGUAS, DEFENDANT AND APPELLANT.

The appellant herein, together with 26 other persons, was charged by the
fiscal of Pampanga Province with gambling in violation of the provisions of
section 7 of Act No. 1757 of the Philippine Commission. Upon the trial of the
case all of the accused pleaded guilty with the exception of Saturnino Aguas and
Marciano Ordonez, who pleaded “not guilty.” Upon the proof adduced at the trial
of the case both were found guilty and each was sentenced to pay a fine of P30,
to suffer subsidiary imprisonment as provided by law, and to pay his
proportionate part of the costs of the trial. From this judgment of conviction
Aguas alone appealed, and the case is now before us on his appeal.

The record establishes that on the night of April 13, 1913, the appellant and
a number of other persons were present at the house of Candido Rivera in the
municipality of Mexico, Province of Pampanga, where a game of “monte” was in
progress; that about half past 10 o’clock a raid was made on the house by two
Constabulary soldiers who suddenly entered the room where the gambling was in
progress and seized some P20 in money, some cards and other gambling
paraphernalia, and arrested the persons found in the room.

At the moment
of the arrest this appellant was standing some 3 or 4 meters from the table
where the gambling was in progress, engaged in a conversation with the owner of
the house. Appellant claims that he had come to the house just a short while
before for the purpose of seeing the owner on a matter of business and that he
was discussing the business in hand at the time of the raid. But we agree with
the trial judge that his explanation of his presence at the gambling game at the
hour and under all the circumstances is not satisfactory. His story as it
appears in the record is not convincing, and we are unable to say that the trial
judge, who saw and heard him testify, erred in refusing to believe his
testimony, and in finding him guilty as charged in the information.

The judgment convicting and sentencing the appellant should be and is hereby
affirmed, with the costs of this instance against the appellant.

Arellano, C. J., Moreland, Trent, and Araullo, JJ.,
concur.