This is an appeal by the defendant from the judgment rendered on December 20,  1911, by the Honorable Adolph Wislizenus, judge, whereby h sentenced her to the penalty of fourteen years eight months and one day of reclusion temporal, to indemnify the heirs of the deceased in of P1,000, without subsidiary imprisonment  in case of insolvency, and t the costs of the  trial.

Between 3 and  4  o'clock on the morning of March 25, 1910, Luisa  Potes presented herself  before Carmelo Ginoo, lieutenant of the barrio of Dal of the pueblo of Barili, Island of  Cebu,  and reported to  him that som trouble had occurred in her house, that she had seriously wounded the man Bonifacio Villaflor, alias Boni, with  the dagger she was carrying and she  then  and there delivered  to  the said lieutenant. The  latter, therefore, accompanied by a policeman, immediately went  to the defendant's  house where  he  found the  corpse  of the man referred  to It was lying face-down on a mat with  the head on the floor, and bore a wound in the left side between the clavicle and the neck.   Beside the body was  a sheet which had an opening produced apparently by a  cutting instrument.  The  said lieutenant in his sworn  testimony stated: that defendant and Honorio Algar had been living together conjugally  for more than  ten years and had seven  children,  two of whom he found asleep inside the said  house and near the place where the corpse was lying; the on that occasion, Honorio Algar  was  out  of the house and absent from the town; that, at the  time of the occurrence, Luisa Potestas was enceinte that  it was known that she was about  in the seventh month of pregnancy for which, she stated, her paramour was  responsible; that the  deceased father,  Andres Villaflor,  said  in  his sworn statement that he knew t son Bonifacio used to go frequently to  the  house of Luisa Potestas, taking advantage of the absences of her paramour,  Honorio Algar, who was in the habit of absenting himself  from his home for purposes of business; that Bonifacio maintained amorous relations with the defendant his mistress,  as  she would  frequently look for him and  he  used to s in the house of the crime whenever Honorio Algar was absent therefrom, and that  he did not know why the  defendant killed his  son.  Luisa Potestas, in her sworn statement, confessed that it  was  she  who stabbed the deceased and caused his  death for the reason she alleged.

An information was  filed in the Court of First Instance by the provincial on September 13, 1911, charging Luisa Potestas with  the  crime of  murder and, upon  the institution of this case, the judge pronounced the sentence that is the subject of this appeal.

From the facts aforestated it is concluded that Bonifacio Villaflor was violently killed while he was in Luisa Potestas' bed, inside  of the hou which  she lived.   The motive which prompted the killing could not be ascertained.  For some time prior to the  crime the deceased  and the defendant had been on very intimate terms,  as Villaflor, taking advantantage of the absences of Honorio  Algar, the old and permanent paramour of the woman Potestas, used to frequent the latter's house and there pass  the night with her. Although  the defendant confessed that she inflicted upon Villaflor the only wound which he received, one between the neck  and  the clavicle,  yet  she alleged a  certain defense which will be considered. was no eyewitness  to the commission  of the crime, nor is it shown by t record that the assaulted party, Villaflor, was asleep when he received mortal wound which  caused his death.  We  therefore accept the opinion formed by the trial  judge in classifying the crime as homicide, pursuant  article 404 of the Penal Code.  It was not proven at the trial that there was present any of the  qualifying  circumstances of murder such  as determine the imposition  of a severer  penalty.

The defendant pleaded not guilty and alleged that while asleep in her ho on the night aforementioned, the door and windows having been closed and fastened, she awoke  on feeling that a man was  touching her head and laying himself on  top  of her for  the  purpose  of abusing her; that while trying to prevent him from so doing, she chanced to catch hold of hilt of a weapon which the man on top of her was carrying in his belt, whereupon, while she was still endeavoring to prevent her aggressor from carrying out his purpose, in spite of the fact that  with one hand he was covering her mouth and with the other trying to raise her skirt, and as result of the  efforts she made to free herself, the  weapon, the hilt o which  she  was holding in her right hand, came out  of its  scabbard an pierced her aggressor's  body,  although she  did not  then know that th man,  on getting up, had already been wounded; that she in turn also got up  and went to  the window,  from which she jumped out,  whereupon she noticed that the man was panting and fell to the floor; and that immediately thereafter she left the  place to present  herself to the leutenant of the barrio to whom  she delivered the weapon she carried.

In view of the evidence presented, and notwithstanding that there was.no eyewitness  to the occurrence, the defendant's testimony is in  all resp improbable and incredible, and, therefore, can support no finding  of exemption  from responsibility  on the ground that she acted  in  legitimate defense of her honor; nor can it be admitted, as she alleged, that she involuntarily  assaulted the  deceased  with the dagger.

The evidence  in fact shows that the lieutenant of the barrio, Carmelo G and the deceased's father, Andres Villaflor, upon visiting the house of crime, found that the entrance door thereof was closed and barred and th all its windows were also closed, except one. through which the policeman Felicio Ibo, entered, by order of the lieutenant, for the purpose of ope the said door; that,  upon examining the clothes  in  which the body was dressed, no disorder was noticed in them and it was observed that the trousers were  buttoned up; that the body, from the feet to the shoulder was lying stretched  out  on a  mat, and the head was off the mat  and resting on the bare floor; that they found a pillow with signs of two depressions, one beside the other, apparently produced by the weight of heads lying on it, and a sheet stained with blood, with a hole in it, apparently cut by the dagger presented by the defendant to the barrio lieutenant; and that the wound borne by the body was situated between the neck and the left clavicle; from all of which testimony  it is concluded into consideration the defendant's  statement that she held the weapon i her right hand, that she inflicted the wound at a time when  the decease was at her side; that there was no attempted rape, an indefensible allegation, because it was proven that the deceased had for some time pa been maintaining unlawful relations with her and therefore,  as  he frequented her house and was in habit of sleeping there with her on the occasions o the absence of her other paramour, he had no need of exercising against her either force or violence, for  they  were accustomed  to cohabit of own free will and accord.  The last time that the deceased passed  the night in the said house,  the defendant,  his mistress, inflicted upon h fatal wound and  thus committed, at least, the crime of homicide, as the defendant, who was the aggressor, made use, not of a weapon carried by the deceased, but of one which she had and which, two days  before, was seen by the  victim's  father in the possession of  her  brother, Esteba Potestas. It can not be believed that the commission of the crime was preceded by a struggle or  even by any dispute between the assailant and her victim, because the children, who were sleeping in  the same house a a short distance from the place where the body was found, were still asl when the policeman,  the barrio lieutenant,  and the  deceased's father entered the building.

Although the criminal  act was perpetrated at  night, the circumstance o nocturnity is not to be taken into account, because the record does not that the cover of darkness was purposely  sought, and  because the  crime was committed upon a person who used to frequent the house with the consent of the owner thereof.   There is no aggravating  circumstance to consider, and  no extenuating one, except that prescribed in article 11 Penal Code, amended by Act No. 2142, on account of the ignorance and lack of education  of the defendant, and, therefore,  the penalty of homicide should be imposed in its medium degree.

For the foregoing reasons, it is proper, in our opinion, to affirm the judgment appealed  from; provided, however, that the defendant, Luisa Potestas, s be sentenced to the penalty of only twelve years and one day of reclusion temporal, to the accessories  of article  59, and to pay the indemnity a costs mentioned in the said judgment, together with the cost of this ins So ordered.

Arellano, C. J., Mapa, Johnson, Carson, and  Trent JJ.,concur.