The defendant and appellant caused the death of her husband by wounding him mortally with a dagger. This is admitted. But the prosecution presented no eyewitnesses to the homicide and showed no motive for its perpetration. We are therefore thrown back on the account of the defendant which naturally should be given due consideration. Therefore, not disregarding the testimony of the accused, but on the contrary giving it credence because consistent and generating a belief in the truthfulness of her statements, the narration of the defendant as to how she acted in self-defense to repel unlawful aggression is entirely reasonable. (U. S. vs. Bolar [1902], 1 Phil. Rep., 423; U. S. vs. De los Santos [1913], 24 Phil. Rep., 329.) It is almost needless to add that with the evidence in this state, we must hold that the defendant is exempted from criminal responsibility. (U. S. vs. Sosa [1905], 4 Phil. Rep., 104; U. S. vs. Mack [1907], 8 Phil. Rep., 701.)

Agreeable to the recommendation of the Attorney-General, judgment is reversed and the defendant and appellant acquitted with the costs de officio. So ordered.

Arellano, C. J., Johnson, Carson, Araullo, and Street, JJ., concur.