This is an appeal from a  judgment of the Court of First Instance of Sorsogon, Hon. Jose C. Abreu presiding, convicting the appellant of the crime of parricide and sentencing her to reelusidn perpetua, to the accessories provided by law, and to pay the costs of the trial.

The information filed against the accused charged:

"That in the municipality of  Sorsogon, Province of Sorsogon, P. L, on or about the 23d day of April of the present year (1909), Claudio Chavez, being in his house, in company with  his wife, the accused, a dispute  arose between them caused by the jealousy of the husband toward the accused by reason of her alleged relations with a policeman, Fermin Micaller; that as a result of the dispute the accused seized a shoe and struck her  husband in the face with  the heel of it, and, not contented with this, the said accused, being in possession of a knife, 5£ centimeters or inches in length, struck her husband a blow with it in the abdomen, causing a wound in the epigastrium from which the said Claudio Chavez died within a few hours.  In violation of the law."

No one saw the commission of the crime except the accused and her  deceased  husband.  The  Government presented several witnesses in support of its accusation against  the appellant.

Pedro Paguia, the physician who examined the  deceased before his death, testified that he found a wound of considerable depth which had intersected the stomach and the vessels of that region, caused by a sharp and pointed instrument; that its direction was  inward  and  downward; that said wound was mortal, and that it was the cause of the death of the deceased.

Bernabe Flores Palma, justice of the peace of Sorsogon, testified that he immediately went to the house where  the crime was committed for the purpose of making an investigation and found the deceased lying on  his back on the floor, with a wound in his stomach; that he was  unable  to speak distinctly, but was able, nevertheless, when  interrogated by the witness as to what had occurred, to say that -

"He and his wife, Juliana Brioso, had had a quarrel; that his  wife Juliana struck him in the face with a shoe and then immediately struck him in the stomach with a knife; that on feeling himself wounded in  the stomach  he  wrested the knife from the hands of his wife and stabbed her; that the wife on being wounded went out of the  house and he did not see anything more of her because he remained lying on his  back on the floor; afterwards he asked  for the services of a priest."

The witness Flores further stated that after his investigations in the barrio, he again went to see the deceased, about 6 o'clock of the afternoon, and took his sworn statement, in which the deceased stated the facts as he had related them before.  That his statement  was taken after  he had confessed to the priest.  He further testified that he found the knife with which the crime had been committed under the petate, and that it was covered with blood; that the deceased did not sign his sworn statement because he was unable  to raise himself sufficiently to  use  the pen;  that  during his statement he stopped frequently  because he  was in a  very grave condition.

Domingo Aguirre, municipal secretary of Sorsogon,  testified to the same facts substantially as the  justice of the peace.  He was the one who interpreted the dying declaration of the deceased.  In regard to the condition of the deceased at the time of his declaration, he stated:

"According to my understanding he was in a  very grave condition, and he,  Claudio, said that he was going to die finally, this  on account of the pain which he felt from the wound which he had."

Lieut.  Juan Francisco  of the Constabulary testified  that, on the afternoon of the said 23d day of April, he also went to the house where the alleged crime had  been  committed for the purpose of investigating what  had occurred; that on arriving there he found a man lying on his back with a wound in the stomach; that he asked him who had wounded him and the  man replied  that it was his wife and that he had done no more than defend himself; that the deceased was not able  to speak well and that he heard no more than the statement that it was his wife who had stabbed him; that the injured man did little but complain of the pain which the wound caused him and to say that he was in a very bad condition.

Jose Capuz, an old friend of the  deceased,  testified that, arriving  at the house where  the event  occurred, he found his friend wounded  in the stomach; that he asked him who had wounded him; that Chavez answered him that he did no more than defend himself; that his wife had stabbed him and that he tried to defend himself and in so doing took the knife away from  her and stabbed her; that he felt bad and  that he was going to die; that he was anxious to    know if they could not get a priest for him; that all this trouble was caused because he  desired to  take his wife to another place.

These were the witnesses for  the prosecution.

The sworn dying declaration of the deceased is as follows:

"I came from the ship and found my wife spinning hemp. We had a quarrel because I was jealous of her and a policeman called Fermin; in this dispute she struck me with a shoe in the face and after that wounded me with a knife in the stomach.  The night before I requested her to be good friends with me, but instead of answering me she struck me with her fist.  When I felt myself wounded I took the knife away from her and stabbed her in the breast.  There was nobody  present at that time or in the room where we were quarreling except ourselves; I do not know to whom the knife belonged, I swear that all that I have said is true, that it was my wife who wounded me in  the stomach.  I thus end my statement, not being able to proceed further in view of my very grave condition."

The appellant, Juliana Brioso, testified in her own behalf as follows:

"On Tuesday night my  husband came  home  from  his ship; when he arrived he began abusing me, asking me if my querido was Fermin, and then went away, taking  my trunk; the following day, about 2 o'clock of the afternoon, he came back; when he arrived I was sitting spinning hemp with my little child in my lap because I was trying to make him go  to sleep; when he arrived he sat down in front of me and  began asking me if Fermin was my querido, and I answered him, 'you are talking just  to hear yourself talk;' after I answered him thus he slapped me and after he struck me I seized my little boy's shoe and struck him in the face with it; on being struck he arose and drew something from his belt, I do not know whether it was a knife or what, and when he had gotten onto his feet he struck me a blow and in defending myself  he wounded  me  and then  afterwards wounded me again, but I held my hand like this and he was unable to stab me very easily; I cried for help, whereupon he stabbed  himself.   I saw only that he raised his arm and struck himself in the stomach, but I did not know whether he wounded himself or not."

Eduardo Lagarde, a witness for the defense, testified that, at about 12 o'clock, as the alleged murder was committed about 2 of  the same day, he and a friend by the name of Sarmiento saw the accused Claudio Chavez in the market and had a conversation with him; that he was pale and appeared nervous and excited; that he stated to the witness and his companion that he was very jealous of his wife and had been so for a long time; that he asked their advice as to what he should do under  the circumstances; that he was trembling and shaking to such an extent that he noticed it himself, and, placing himself before a mirror, he said, "I am pale;" that the deceased further said that he would get out of his trouble if it was not for his children; that that was what was making him thin, and if  they did not give him  what he wanted he would get it by fair  means or foul.

Francisco Sarmiento, another witness for the defense, testified that  he,  in  company with the previous witness, Lagarde, saw the deceased at 12  o'clock of  the  day  upon which the alleged murder was committed and had a conversation with him; that on being requested by Lagarde to assist the deceased in his trouble, he told him that  they ought to arrange their matters amicably; that to this the deceased replied with the statement that he was disposed to wipe out his dishonor with his life,  whereupon he went  to the looking glass, and, having viewed his face therein, said, "I am very thin;" that the witness then told him that  he ought not to excite himself so much over the matter; that they thereupon separated.

It appears from the testimony of Juliana Brioso that her husband had been jealous of her for more than a year and that he had frequently beaten her by reason thereof.

It also appears  from the testimony of the physician who cared for the wounds of the accused,  inflicted upon her by the deceased, that there was a wound in the left forearm and one in the breast, close to the heart; that the former was grave in its character, while the other was of such a nature that,  at that time, he could not tell whether it would cause her death or not.

We have for decision on this appeal, as  appears from the foregoing, simply a question of fact: Did the accused murder her husband or did he commit suicide?  We have considered this question with the greatest care.  We have studied  it from  every point of view.  We can not bring ourselves to believe  that the accused has been proved guilty  by the evidence beyond a reasonable doubt.  We  have here a man who,  for something  like two years, had been extremely jealous of his wife.  He  was, during that time, continually meditating  upon it,  continually  talking  to  her about it, continually quarreling with her and beating her by reason of it.  So much had he meditated upon it and such  a hold had it taken upon him that, two hours before the alleged crime was committed, he had become so nervous,  pale and haggard that it was a matter of special comment among his friends with whom  he talked at  that time.  In this condition, two hours before the crime was committed, he, trembling and excited, had nervously seized one of said friends and drawn him aside for the  purpose of  asking  his views in relation to his family difficulties.   At  that time and place  he had made remarks which clearly pointed to his  present intention to commit suicide  unless  his troubles  could be cured.

With these conditions  presented undisputed  in the evidence, we come to the stories  told by the accused and the deceased.  The accused states that she was quietly sitting at home, with her child in her lap, spinning hemp; that her husband suddenly  came into the house at  a time which, in view of the nature of his employment and his habits, was very unusual; that he sat down in front of  her and began to upbraid her for her infidelity; that, becoming more furious, he struck her in,the face; that thereupon she seized a shoe belonging to the little child and struck him in the face with it; that he leaped up, drew a knife from his belt and stabbed  her twice, the first blow producing a serious gash in the left forearm, which she had thrown up to protect herself,  and the second producing a very dangerous wound in the vicinity of the heart; that, seeing the wound that he had made,  and doubtless in the belief that  he  had murdered her, he then stabbed himself in the abdomen, inflicting his death wound.

On the other hand, we have the  dying declaration of the deceased, in which he states  that, on coming home  and speaking to his wife about  her infidelity to him, she first seized a shoe and struck him in the face and then stabbed him in the  abdomen with a knife, producing the wound from which  he later died; that,  having  received the wound, he wrested the dagger from her and stabbed her in the breast.

We are inclined to believe that the story told by the wife is the more credible of the two,  as it is more in accord with all the  circumstances and probabilities of the case:

(1) The mental and physical condition of the deceased two hours before the alleged crime was committed, as  shown by the undisputed testimony of the case, the threat upon his part to  wipe out his dishonor with his life, taken in connection with the fact that he had been almost insanely jealous of his wife for more than a  year prior to the event, present the picture of a man in exactly the proper frame of mind to act as the accused alleges he  did act on the day in question.

(2) It is  undisputed that  the  wife, at  the time the event occurred, was  seated with her  little child in her lap,  endeavoring to put it to sleep;  that in front of and about her were the instruments and material  used  in the spinning of hemp.   These facts are undisputed.  It would  seem  quite unlikely, if  not unreasonable, that in such  condition and under  such  circumstances she  should seize a  knife and stab her husband fatally in the abdomen, driving the knife through the muscles and walls into the stomach and producing  such a  frightful gash that  the food passed from the stomach out of the wound made by the dagger.  Incumbered, ¦as she undisputably was, with the child and with the material and implements for the spinning of hemp,  it approaches the unreasonable very closely to say that she could  have done as she is alleged to have done in the dying declaration of the deceased.

(3) The wound in  the abdomen of the deceased, as  described by the physician who examined it, is precisely  the wound that would naturally be made by a man stabbing himself as described by the accused.  It is true that such a wound might have been made by the wife if she had stabbed him.  It is more likely, however, that the wound would have presented a different aspect and would have taken a different course in the body if it had been made by the wife during a struggle or during the efforts of the husband to escape it.

(4)  It appears undisputed from the evidence that the deceased had, by his jealous meditation, brought himself to the point where he had the firmest belief of her infidelity and therefore the greatest hatred of  his wife's alleged paramour and an infinite dislike of their alleged relations.  His regard for his wife  had evidently changed into hatred,  and he had stated, as disclosed by the proofs, that if it had not been for his children  he would have left her  long  before.  Having found, after he had delivered the fatal blow against himself, that his wife had not been killed by the knife thrust which he had given her, it is not at all unlikely that the hatred and odium which possessed him drove him to manufacture a story which, if believed, would forever prevent his wife and her paramour from again sustaining the relations which he believed they had sustained theretofore.

(5)  Given the condition, mental and physical, in which the deceased  is shown  to have been at the time  the alleged murder was  committed, it would be a very possible act  to murder his wife and then kill himself.  That he attempted to kill his wife is beyond question and that he almost succeeded is equally beyond dispute.   That he at first believed that  he had given her a fatal blow is undoubted from all the evidence of the  case.

(6)  While  it is true that the  statement of the deceased, to which he thereafter consistently adhered, was made soon after the event occurred, it is also true that the accused gave her version of the affair but a very few minutes after the event, and as consistently maintained it thereafter.  Immediately after receiving the wound in the breast she left the house and went to the house of the lieutenant of the barrio for the purpose of telling her story.  Finding him out, she at once started for  the presidencia, but was overcome  by her  condition before arriving there.  The first statement she made is the story above transcribed, to which she consistently and persistently adhered throughout.

(7) Under the custom of the country, it is unusual for a woman of the character and habits of the accused to carry or have about her the kind of knife which was used in the commission of the alleged crime.  On the other hand, such a knife is habitually carried by sailors, to which class of workmen  the deceased belonged.

(8) Lastly, it seems to us somewhat unlikely that, having received the frightful wound that he did, which, as we have said,  opened the walls of  the  abdomen  and destroyed the stomach to such an  extent that the food which the  latter contained passed outside  of the  body between the lips of the wound, the deceased  would  be  able, in spite of  such wound, to grapple with an  ablebodied woman and forcibly take  from her hand a knife and then  hold her while  he inflicted upon her two serious wounds, one almost fatal.  It would appear that, naturally, such a terrible wound would produce such an effect upon the recipient that he would  be entirely unable to put forth the strength  required to accomplish  such a result,  especially  in view of the great effort which the woman would make to prevent him,  she  well knowing that in all probability the loss of the knife meant the loss of her  life.

These considerations lead us to the belief that there  is at least a reasonable doubt of the guilt of the accused, and she is accordingly acquitted.

The judgment of the court below is reversed, the accused acquitted and her discharge from custody ordered forthwith.

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