THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS, PLAINTIFF AND APPELLEE, VS. BLANDINA ISTORIS, DEFENDANT AND APPELLANT.

In this case against Blandina Istoris, the prosecution contends that
she murdered her husband, Apolonio Barrientos, who, according to the
defense, having been mentally unbalanced, is suspected to have
committed suicide.

The Court of First Instance of Capiz sentenced her to twelve years and one day reclusion temporal, to indemnify the heirs of the deceased in the sum of P1,000, and to pay the costs.

She appeals from that judgment, and her counsel assigns several errors in his brief.

To our mind, the most important incriminating testimony, which is
that given by Alfonso Sucgang Valeriano, suffers from such
inconsistencies and improbabilities that we deem it dangerous in the
interest of justice to accept it as the only evidence for the
prosecution. The motive of the alleged aggression in view of the
preceding facts, the form of the aggression itself in view of the
details as related, the fearless cold-bloodedness displayed by this
witness in sleeping quietly on the night in question in the same house
where he assures us the crime was committed, almost at arm’s length
from the corpse of the supposed victim, strange in themselves but
altogether incongruous with the self-confessed timorous nature of this
witness, constitute evidence unfavorable to the credibility of his
testimony. If to this is added the refutation which is, to a certain
degree effective, made by the defense against the veracity of the
testimony of this witness, we become still more convinced of the scant
value of such evidence of conviction.

Venancio Moises’ declaration, which in itself is difficult to believe, is, that while he was up in a coconut tree getting tuba, he saw the defendant and her companions hanging up the corpse in a camarin
which, according to the evidence, was roofed, is not worthy of credit.
Hilario Garcia’s testimony that the cries of help he heard were
Apolonio Barrientos’, is mere hearsay from his brother. The testimony
of the other witnesses presented by the prosecution is of little
importance.

The evidence of the prosecution is not, to our mind, sufficient to
hold the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt of the crime in
question which, committed, according to the prosecution, in September,
1924, was only denounced in the year 1927, without satisfactorily
explaining at the trial so prolonged a, silence on the part of those
who now claim to be aware of the crime, nor how Apolonio Barrientos’
death, caused by his own wife, could have been kept a secret so long.

Although this court has repeatedly held that it would not disturb
the findings of fact of the trial court as to the credibility of
witnesses, nevertheless, when, as in the instant case, we find
sufficient cause in the record to warrant a departure from such
findings, proper corrections should be made, inasmuch as it is
incumbent upon this court to determine the guilt or innocence of the
defendant in view of the evidence presented during the trial, as held
by the Supreme Court of the United States in the case of Pendleton vs. United States (216 U. S., 305; 54 Law. ed., 491; 40 Phil., 1033).

The appealed judgment is reversed, and the defendant is hereby
acquitted, with costs de oficio, and all other favorable
pronouncements. So ordered.

Johnson, Malcolm, Ostrand, Johns, and Villa-Real, JJ., concur.