This is an appeal from a judgment of the Court of First Instance of the Province of La Laguna, the Hon. Vicente Jocson presiding, convicting  the accused of the crime of rape and sentencing  him to  fourteen years eight months and one  day of reclusion temporal, to the accessories provided by law,  to pay to the person violated the sum of P500, to recognize and  maintain the child, if any there should be, and to pay the costs of the action.

It is alleged in this case that on the 24th day of August, 1909, while Epifania Abadines,  a deaf-mute, was alone in her stepfather's house, the accused entered the same, and, seizing her, threw her upon the floor, and by means of force and  violence, and in spite of her efforts and objections, had sexual communication with her.

To establish this charge the prosecution presented several witnesses.

Matea Pacheco testified that on the day in question she lived about 4 meters from the house of the Abadines; that on said day, at about 4 o'clock in the afternoon, she heard an unusual noise in the  house occupied  by Epifania that, moved by curiosity,  she  went to see what was going on; that on  entering the house she saw the accused consummating  the act of sexual intercourse with Epifania; that she observed that Epifania  was strenuously objecting to the act and attempting  to free  herself from the embrace of the accused, but was  unable  to do so by  reason  of his superior strength; that she immediately left the house to bring help.

Canuto Aquino testified that on the day in question, at about 4  o'clock in the afternoon, he was awakened from slumber  by his wife, who stated to him that something extraordinary was occurring in  the house occupied by the Abadines; that on going there he found Epifania crying, with her  hair disarranged; that just as  he arrived at the steps which led into  the  house the accused came down the stairs leaving the same.

Fabiana Abadier,  mother of Epifania, testified that on the morning of the day in question she left Epifania in the house and went away for the day to attend to some work; that  on  her return in the afternoon Epifania came to  her crying and stated to her that  the accused  had forcibly violated her while the mother was absent.

Telesforo Ejercito, a physician, testified that he examined Epifania some  days after the commission  of  the  crime alleged, and that it was his opinion that she had  performed the act of sexual intercourse not long before such examination.   The cross examination of this witness, however, left his testimony entirely without value to the prosecution.

The accused  testified  in his  own behalf.   He asserted that on the 24th day of August he was, and for  some time prior thereto had been, a partner of the stepfather of Epifania in  the manufacture and  the  purchase and sale of bancas;  that he was  accustomed to visit the house frequently: that on the  day in  question at about  4 o'clock in the afternoon he went to the house occupied by Epifania, her mother and  stepfather, for the purpose of  delivering to the latter some money which he had recently received in the course of their business; that finding there only Epifania he placed the money on the table and by means of signs told her to care for it until her stepfather  came;  that as he was engaged in the act of counting it to be sure  that there was no mistake, Epifania, taking  a handkerchief, wiped the sweat frdm his face; that while thus engaged Epifania pointed to an open window of the  house, through which could be  seen Matea Pacheco  looking at them  from the window of her house; that observing this he arose, borrowed a bolo from the  girl and  went  out of the house leaving her there sweeping the floor; that on descending from the house he cut some bamboo which was growing at the side of the house; that while he was cutting the bamboo the witness Canuto Aquino came to the house and, after looking around awhile, inquired of the accused what he was going to  do with the bamboo that he was cutting; that he replied that he was going to repair his house; that thereupon Canuto went  away; that after cutting the  bamboo and  returning the bolo to Epifania, he went home.

The accused also testified that Matea Pacheco did  not come to the house while he was there.  He also swore that Matea Pacheco had had trouble with his mother and  that there was bad feeling between the families  by  reason  of the fact  that his mother had compelled Matea  to pay a debt which she owed her.  The accused denied that he had had sexual intercourse with Epifania on the day in question but stated that by mutual consent such an event had occurred between them some months prior.

The testimony of the accused  is supported and corroborated by  the  testimony of Segundo Lagradilla, Anacleto

Ladiana and Maria Flores.  Lagradilla testified that at the time of the commission of the alleged offense he was and for some time prior thereto had been the owner of a piece of land  near the  house  in which the crime is  alleged to have been  committed; that on the day in question he was mending the fence surrounding  said  lot; that he saw the accused near the house where Epifania then lived, cutting bamboo  with a bolo; that prior  to the time when  he observed the  accused thus  engaged he had not heard or noted anything unusual occurring inside the house; that he had been there for some time before the accused went to the house and  was there until very late in the afternoon,  long after the accused had left the house; that he saw Epifania sweeping the floor while the accused was there and after he had left; that he saw nothing unusual in her appearance; that she acted naturally; that shortly after the accused left the house, Epifania called to the house a young girl  named Gore, a sister of the  accused, and  the two went to the river to wash  clothes; that he saw Epifania plainly  while she was sweeping the floor and when  she  passed by him on her way to the  river in company with Gore, and that there was nothing  unusual in  her appearance; that she was not weeping  and gave  no evidence  of having  been weeping recently.   On cross-examination  this witness testified  that although the  accused entered the house,  he remained there but a very  short time when he came forth with a bolo and began to cut  bamboo. This witness also testified that the only person who went to the house at the time the accused was  there was the witness Canuto Aquino, and that  Matea Pacheco did not approach the house during that  time.

The witness Anacleto Ladiana testified that he  was present in  the  barbershop of Matea Pacheco's husband when she had a quarrel with the mother of the accused over the fact that the latter  had compelled Matea to pay a  debt which she owed her, the said Matea threatening her in the following language:  "You look out, I will pay you, there are other  days  coming,"  at  the same time throwing at her a piece of money  which he took to be a peseta.

Maria Flores, mother of the accused, testified that Matea Pacheco was an enemy of hers,  having been made such by reason of compelling her to pay a debt which she owed her.

While the witness Canuto Aquino testified that when the accused descended the stairs from the house his appearance was somewhat unusual, nevertheless, when confronted with the testimony which he gave before the justice of the peace on the preliminary examination, which showed that he had therein stated that he carefully observed the accused when he descended from the house and that he appeared as usual, he admitted that what he testified  to before the justice of the peace was true.  It should also be noticed in connection with the testimony of this witness that  although  he had been sent to the house  by Matea  Pacheco, who told  him that the accused was forcibly violating Epifania, and  that on arriving there he  saw her crying and disordered, he yet asked no questions and made no endeavor whatever to investigate  the cause of her trouble or to do anything in her behalf.

That the  accused went to the  house on  the  afternoon in question to  deliver money to the stepfather of Epifania is undisputed.   That he  delivered the money to Epifania to be given by  her to her stepfather is also undisputed.  That he was in the house but a very short time is uncontradicted. That on leaving the house he borrowed a bolo from Epifania, that he leisurely  and in his  own time cut the bamboo which  he needed to repair his house, that he then returned the bolo into the hands  of Epifania, are facts which are admitted by all.  These  are events as they  usually  and naturally occur in the ordinary affairs of life when nothing eventful has happened and when no serious crime has been committed.  It is  entirely improbable that if the accused had just come from forcibly violating Epifania he would calmly borrow a bolo from her and leisurely cut  bamboo at the very threshold of the house where the violation had occurred, and would as calmly and quietly return the bolo into the hands of Epifania after the bamboo had been cut. It is highly improbable that a young lady  who had just been criminally violated by brute force would still continue to carry out the ordinary relations of friendship with the very man who had been the cause of her degradation.

The testimony of this  witness  demonstrates, then, that the relations sustained between Epifania and the  accused after the alleged violation were those which would naturally be expected between  persons who  had  nothing  between them except friendly relations instead of those of violator and violated, and  that the appearance and deportment of Epifania after the alleged violation were entirely different from those  which would  be naturally expected under the circumstances alleged by the prosecution.   She not only swept  the house in the  ordinary manner and conducted herself as she ordinarily did, but she also  called to her company another young lady, with whom she  went to the river to wash clothes, exhibiting no  unusual symptoms and showing no unusual treatment.  It should be observed also that this witness testified that Matea Pacheco  did not go to the house on  that afternoon during the time  when the accused  was there.   The testimony of  this witness strongly corroborates the  theory and story of the accused.

It should not be forgotten  that there  was ill feeling existing between Matea Pacheco and  the mother of the accused. That Matea Pacheco was at the time of the trial  of this action, and had for some time prior thereto been, an enemy of the mother of the accused is overwhelmingly established by the proofs.

The  torn and bloody garments which the  prosecution alleged were the result of  the forcible violation of Epifania were not presented as  evidence on the trial of this  action, and the only testimony as to  the existence qf such garments is that of the mother of the girl alleged to have been violated.

Upon the whole case there is a clear doubt that the evidence establishes  the guilt of the accused.  We, therefore, reverse the judgment of  the  trial court and  acquit the accused of the crime charged against him.  So ordered.

Torres, Mapa, Johnson, and Carson,  JJ.,  concur.