G.R. No. 34665 - People vs. Bindoy

The accused, Donato Bindoy, was charged with homicide for an incident that occurred on May 6, 1930, in the barrio of Calunod, municipality of Baliangao, Occidental Misamis.
Prior to the incident, Bindoy was present at a tuba wineshop in the barrio market where a disturbance had arisen among tuba drinkers.
Individuals present included Faustino Pacas (alias Agaton) and his wife Tibay, with Bindoy also involved in the unfolding events.

Bindoy, while present in the wineshop, offered tuba to Pacas’ wife, Tibay. When she refused due to already having consumed alcohol, Bindoy threatened her with bodily harm.
An exchange of words ensued between Tibay and Bindoy, prompting Pacas to intervene in order to defend his wife by attempting to seize the bolo (machete) Bindoy carried.
A physical struggle developed between Bindoy and Pacas over the possession of the bolo.
During the altercation, Emigdio Omamdam, a neighboring relative (nephew and uncle relationship with Bindoy) and bystander, came out of his home to see the disturbance.
In the course of the struggle, Bindoy managed to free himself from Pacas by wrenching the bolo from Pacas’ grip; however, the bolo flew with such force toward Bindoy’s left side, striking Omamdam in the chest.
The wound inflicted on Omamdam was consistent in size with the point of Bindoy’s bolo, and the sanitary inspector’s description confirmed this resemblance.

Witnesses, including Pacas and the widow Carmen Angot, testified that Bindoy stabbed Omamdam with the bolo.
Bindoy maintained that the injury inflicted on Omamdam occurred accidentally during the tussle with Pacas, without any deliberate intent to harm the bystander.
A key witness for the defense, Gaudencio Cenas, corroborated Bindoy’s version:

He verified that the struggle was over the possession of the bolo.
He explained that as Bindoy let go during the struggle, Pacas pulled the bolo with such force that it inadvertently flew toward Omamdam, who was passing behind Bindoy at that time.
Cenas further noted that Omamdam himself described the wound as accidental, remarking, “I think I shall die of this wound” and “This wound was an accident. Donato did not aim at me, nor I at him: It was a mishap.”

No evidence was produced that indicated any ill-feeling or premeditated intent between Bindoy and Omamdam, who were related and on good terms.
The case record revealed an absence of evidence regarding any explicit motive that would transform an accidental act into a felonious homicide.

The trial court found Bindoy guilty of homicide under article 404 of the Penal Code, sentencing him to twelve years and one day of reclusion temporal, along with accessory penalties including indemnifying the heirs of the deceased with P1,000 and payment of court costs.
Bindoy appealed against the conviction, arguing that the fatal injury was accidental and that he had acted in self-defense in the struggle with Pacas.

Whether Bindoy’s act of inadvertently causing the death of Emigdio Omamdam amounted to the commission of homicide with deliberate intent.

Did the circumstances and the evidence support that the act was done willfully and with malice, or was it merely an accident arising from the struggle?

Whether the testimonies, including that of the prosecution witnesses versus the defense witness, established beyond reasonable doubt a wrongful criminal intent.
Whether the absence of any prior ill-feeling or motive between Bindoy and Omamdam could negate criminal liability for homicide as charged.