The appellant was sentenced by the Court  of First Instance of Iloilo to the penalty of  fourteen  years, eight months, and one day reclusion temporal, to the accessories of the law and to pay the costs of the action, for the crime of rape,  inasmuch  as the accused,  according  to the complaint, on March 15, 1925, taking advantage of the occasion when Maria Belgera was alone, intentionally  and criminally attacked her, throwing  her to  the  floor,  leaving  her almost senseless, and lay  with her against her will.

According to the  prosecution, on the afternoon of March 15, 1925, the accused went up to Belgera's house  in  the barrio of Arak, municipality of Passi,  Iloilo, and  asked Maria Belgera  where her husband  was; and upon  being informed that he was in town, the accused approached  her and asked her to have sexual intercourse with him.  The offended  party refused,  but the accused forcibly took hold of her arm and threw her on the floor, mounted her, and in ispite of her resistance, succeeded in raping her.  According to the offended  party, while the accused was still upon her,  the  witnesses  Alejandro Panila and Lope Palmares arrived.

Alejandro Panila testified having  arrived at Belgera's house on the afternoon mentioned  and saw  the accused seated close to the  offended party, buttoning his trousers, which were smeared with blood.  He also saw  that  the offended  party had fainted, with her  chemise smeared with blood, and instead of pursuing the accused, who had jumped through  the window and  was running towards a bamboo gro,ve, he gave his attention to the offended party.

The other witness, Lope Palmares, in turn, testified that from where he was standing on the ground he saw the offended party, through the door of the  house, in the same position in which Alejandro Panila saw her,  having seen the accused jump through the back window.

According to the witnesses for the defense, the following occurred in Belgera's house on the afternoon mentioned: A woman named Catalina Padernal came from the cockpit somewhat  intoxicated and wanted to  pass by  Belgera's house in order to ask for something to chew, and just as she was about to go upstairs Lope Palmares gave her a push, the stairway falling on top of her.  Catalina Padernal  thereupon shouted for help and  picked up a piece of wood and tried to beat the one who had hurt her.  Maria Belgera, who was upstairs in the house,  also shouted at the same time that Catalina  Padernal was calling  from below. This incident brought the people of the neighborhood to the scene and Maria Belgera, who had delivered  five months before,  suffered  a hemorrhage from  the shock.  This  is substantially the testimony  of the witnesses  Matea  Deocadiz,  Catalina  Padernal,  and  Cayetano  Dapiado.  The latter testified  that he lived in Belgera's house about March 15,  1925,  and that on the day  following the quarrel he overheard a conversation between the Belgeras to the effect that if  they attributed  the offended party's shock to Catalina Padernal who was intoxicated,  the accused  Damaso would not  be  involved in the affair;  but if they  accused Damaso of the rape, then he might be punished.  The same witness testified  that  on the afternoon  of  the incident Lope Palmares,  Pablo Belgera,  and his wife Maria Belgera and a younger sister of the  latter were in a house.

According to this witness, the following  day Alejandro Panila, who appears to be a quack, came to the offended party's  house  and while there he  discussed with the Belgeras the question as to the action that must be taken in order to insure the conviction of Damaso, Panila believing that if they prosecuted him for drunkenness only, it would result in nothing for either party,  but if they said that Damaso fought with Maria, he might  be convicted.

There are two other witnesses for  the defense who merit special attention.  We refer to Jose Paloma,  president of the municipality of Passi.  This witness states that on the night of March 15,1925, Pablo Belgera, the offended party's husband,  in  company with  Lope Palmares came  to his house in order to consult him as to  what he must  do, for on that afternoon an intoxicated woman wanted to come upstairs in their house and Lope Palmares pushed her and she fell  to  the floor. As the intoxicated  woman might cause trouble, Pablo's wife become frightened and later had a  hemorrhage, as she had just delivered.  The president advised him to find some person who  would take care of his wife, as there was no nurse available at night in the municipality.   The president states that Pablo Belgera said nothing to him  that night about the supposed raping of his wife.   The following day the said municipal president sent a  policeman  to  the  place to investigate the cause  of the disturbance  and the  sergeant of police reported that there really had been some trouble there.  Pablo Belgera and Lope Palmares tried to discredit the municipal president stating, in rebuttal,  that they had informed the president of the rape on the  night of March 15, 1925.

The other witness to whom we refer is Diego Jimenez, a Spaniard  residing in that barrio, in charge of the hacienda where Pablo Belgera works.   The testimony  of this witness has  exceptional  weight inasmuch as  he has no relations with the persons involved  in this affair,  nor is he interested in the  outcome of the same.  This witness testifies that on the  afternoon  in question he  came from the cockpit with Cristeto Padernal and Catalina Padernal, the latter being somewhat intoxicated..  The witness left them in front of his house while Gatalina Padernal told him that she wanted to pass by the offended party's house in order to ask for something to chew.  Hardly had the witness arrived at his house when he heard shouts for help, ran and found Catalina  close to Pablo Belgera's house  with her mouth bleeding.   He asked  her what had happened and she told him that Lope Palmares had kicked her.  He then questioned  Lope Palmares and the latter replied that Catalina had  fallen downstairs  because she was intoxicated.  The witness tried to pacify Catalina and convince her that she should return  to her house in  Arak.  The following day Pablo Belgera went to Jimenez's house to inform his master that he would not be able  to work because his wife was sick and had had a hemorrhage, and in speaking about  the affair of the day  before,  the witness suggested that  he  make an amicable settlement  of the trouble  and appears to have succeeded to some  extent in the way of  making the people of Arak pay Pablo the  67 centavos which he earned daily, and the value of the milk for Pablo Belgera's baby.

The accused denied having gone up into the offended party's house on the afternoon in question and raped her, or having been in the  offended party's house on that  date, because he was  fishing in the river in company with Felipe Palma.   The latter confirms  the testimony  of the accused saying that they were fishing in the river and returned to their homes very late that night.

In view of the evidence, the trial court gave no credit to the witnesses for the defense and found the accused guilty of the crime of rape, imposing upon him the penalty above indicated.

We have carefully considered  the evidence introduced in this case and find no good reason for the  absolute rejection  of the testimony presented in defense of the accused.  The two witnesses, Dapiado and Jimenez, testify that Pablo Belgera, the offended party's  husband, was in his house on the afternoon in question, which testimony makes the perpetration  of the criminal act improbable.  Neither do we find any reasonable ground for discrediting the testimony of the president of the municipality of Passi.

It appears certain to us that the  offended party had delivered five months before, that she had a hemorrhage, which  was  due,  according  to  the  defense,  by  the shock cause by the disturbance made by the  intoxicated Gatalina near the offended party's house.  Catalina tried to go upstairs in Belgera's house and the witness Palmares pushed the stairway of the house which fell on Catalina, injuring her lips, which gave rise to the disturbance that afternoon.

The only acceptable theory in order to reconcile the statements of the witnesses for the prosecution and the  defense would be that the rape took place before the incident between  Catalina and Palmares.  But the record does not contain any positive data as to the time of the commission of the crime; and, supposing that the rape preceded the said incident, we have the testimony of Matea Deocadiz, according to which,  while Catalina was shouting  from below on account of having been pushed downstairs by Palmares, the offended party was shouting upstairs, which indicates that she had not fainted as a result of being raped, as stated by Panila.  And, if  we take into consideration the testimony of Diego Jimenez and the municipal president above cited, we cannot say with certainty from the evidence that the guilt of the accused was proven beyond a reasonable doubt.

We are of the opinion that the accused is entitled to the benefit of the doubt; and therefore the judgment appealed must be, as it is, hereby reversed, and the appellant Damaso Padernal acquitted with the costs de  ofiicio.  So ordered.

Avancena, C. J., Johnson, Malcolm,  Ostrand, Johns, Romualdez, and  Villa-Real, JJ., concur.