G.R. No. 12701. September 06, 1917
THE UNITED STATES, PLAINTIFF AND APPELLEE, VS. BONIFACIA SALAMAT, DEFENDANT AND APPELLANT.
Decisions / Signed Resolutions September 6, 1917 MALCOLM, J.:
MALCOLM, J.:
The defendant and appellant caused the death of her husband by wounding him
mortally with a dagger. This is admitted. But the prosecution presented no
eyewitnesses to the homicide and showed no motive for its perpetration. We are
therefore thrown back on the account of the defendant which naturally should be
given due consideration. Therefore, not disregarding the testimony of the
accused, but on the contrary giving it credence because consistent and
generating a belief in the truthfulness of her statements, the narration of the
defendant as to how she acted in self-defense to repel unlawful aggression is
entirely reasonable. (U. S. vs. Bolar [1902], 1 Phil. Rep., 423; U. S.
vs. De los Santos [1913], 24 Phil. Rep., 329.) It is almost needless to
add that with the evidence in this state, we must hold that the defendant is
exempted from criminal responsibility. (U. S. vs. Sosa [1905], 4 Phil.
Rep., 104; U. S. vs. Mack [1907], 8 Phil. Rep., 701.)
mortally with a dagger. This is admitted. But the prosecution presented no
eyewitnesses to the homicide and showed no motive for its perpetration. We are
therefore thrown back on the account of the defendant which naturally should be
given due consideration. Therefore, not disregarding the testimony of the
accused, but on the contrary giving it credence because consistent and
generating a belief in the truthfulness of her statements, the narration of the
defendant as to how she acted in self-defense to repel unlawful aggression is
entirely reasonable. (U. S. vs. Bolar [1902], 1 Phil. Rep., 423; U. S.
vs. De los Santos [1913], 24 Phil. Rep., 329.) It is almost needless to
add that with the evidence in this state, we must hold that the defendant is
exempted from criminal responsibility. (U. S. vs. Sosa [1905], 4 Phil.
Rep., 104; U. S. vs. Mack [1907], 8 Phil. Rep., 701.)
Agreeable to the recommendation of the Attorney-General, judgment is reversed
and the defendant and appellant acquitted with the costs de officio. So
ordered.
Arellano, C. J., Johnson, Carson, Araullo, and Street, JJ.,
concur.