Case Digest (G.R. No. 34665)
Facts:
The People of the Philippine Islands v. Donato Bindoy, G. R. No. 34665, August 28, 1931, the Supreme Court En Banc, Villamor, J., writing for the Court.
The appellant, Donato Bindoy, was charged by information with homicide under article 404 of the Penal Code for wounding Emigdio Omamdam with a bolo on May 6, 1930, in barrio Calunod, Baliangao, Occidental Misamis. The Court of First Instance of Occidental Misamis convicted Bindoy and sentenced him to twelve years and one day of reclusion temporal, ordered indemnity of P1,000 to the heirs, and costs. Bindoy appealed.
The factual background shows a disturbance in a tuba wineshop begun by drinkers involving Faustino Pacas (alias Agaton) and his wife Tibay. Bindoy, present with a bolo, offered tuba to Tibay; when she refused he threatened her, an exchange of words ensued, and Pacas attempted to take Bindoy’s bolo. During their struggle Pacas and Bindoy tugged at the bolo; Emigdio Omamdam, who lived nearby, left his house to see what was happening and passed behind the combatants. In the struggle Bindoy allegedly disengaged the bolo with force such that its point struck Emigdio in the chest, producing a wound from which he died.
Witnesses for the prosecution, including Pacas and the deceased’s widow Carmen Angot, testified seeing Bindoy stab Emigdio. Defense testimony (notably Gaudencio Cenas) described a violent wrenching of the bolo during the struggle that caused the weapon to fly leftward and accidentally hit Emigdio, whom Bindoy did not see because he had passed behind them; Cenas also recounted a purported dying remark by Emigdio calling the wound an accident. There was no evidence of prior ill feeling or motive between Bindoy and Emigdio; they were described as nephew and uncle and on good terms.
On appeal the Supreme Court reviewed the record of the trial court’s conviction and the conflicting testimony. The Court considered the applicability of Article 1 of the Penal Code (liability when a differe...(Pro-only)
Issues:
- Was the appellant proven guilty beyond reasonable doubt of homicide?
- If not, was the killing an accidental event that entitled the appellant to acquittal under article 8, No. 8, P...(Pro-only)
Ruling:
- (Pro-only)
Ratio:
- (Pro-only)
Doctrine:
- (Pro-only)