The defendant Juan N. Gimena is charged with the crime of parricide.  It appears from the  evidence that on the morning of April 9, 1930, in the municipality of Ronda, Province of Cebu, the defendant helped his father-in-law, Gregorio Diana,  in  cleaning bamboo.  After having  finished the cleaning he went home and upon arriving there he found his wife Crispina Diana and a child 2 weeks of age  sleeping together on the  floor.   Shortly afterwards Gregorio Diana heard his daughter, the defendant's wife, cry for help.   He went to the defendant's house which was close to his own and there found the defendant attacking Crispina with a bolo.  With the assistance of Teodulo Gimena, a brother  of  the defendant, Gregorio succeeded in disarming the defendant and tied him to a post of the house. The matter was then reported to the authorities and the justice of the peace, the chief of police, a sanitary inspector and a policeman appeared on the scene.  The justice of the peace asked the defendant why he had attacked his wife and received the answer that it was because she had given the sum of P2.70 to one Apolinar Sereno  whom he, the defendant,  suspected of  illicit relations with the wife. A few hours later on the same  day  Crispina Diana died and  the examination subsequently  made   disclosed. ten wounds in  different parts of her body.

After trial the  court below found the defendant guilty of parricide and considering in his  favor the mitigating circumstances of obfuscation and lack of instruction, sentenced him to suffer fourteen years and eight months and one day of cadena temporal with  the accessory penalties prescribed by law  and to pay the costs.   From this judgment the defendant appealed.

The appellant's argument in his favor is that he was in a state  of somnambulism when he attacked his wife. We  do  not think that this theory can serve as a defense in the present case.  By order of the trial  court the defendant was placed under observation for some time by Dr. Luis B. Gomez, but the doctor  apparently did not discover any somnambulism on the part of the defendant.  A defense of that character must be proven and  such proof is lacking in  this case.

"The defense that the offense charged was committed by the accused during the prevalence of or in a state of somnambulism has been recognized;  but the latest holding of courts is to the effect that it does not constitute a defense other than that embraced in a plea of insanity."   (Wharton's Criminal Law, vol. 1, p. 574.)

We can find no error in the decision of the court below and  the appealed  judgment is therefore affirmed  with the costs against the appellant.  So ordered.

Johnson, Street, Malcolm, Villamor, Johns,  Romiuildez, and  Villa-Real, JJ.,  concur.