Title
People vs. Ferdo
Case
G.R. No. 24978
Decision Date
Mar 27, 1926
A municipal policeman, fearing escaped prisoners, fatally shot an unidentified man without verifying his identity, leading to a conviction for homicide through reckless negligence.

Case Digest (G.R. No. 24978)
Expanded Legal Reasoning Model

Facts:

  • Background and Circumstances
    • Several Moro prisoners had earlier escaped from the Penal Colony of San Ramon, Zamboanga.
    • The residents of Municahan, a barrio in the municipality of Zamboanga, were alerted by the presence of three suspicious persons prowling the area.
    • The accused, Fernando de Fernando, was at the time employed as a municipal policeman, well-aware of the need for vigilance following the prisoner escape.
  • The Incident at Remigio Delgado’s Residence
    • While Fernando de Fernando was passing in front of Remigio Delgado’s house, he was beckoned by Delgado’s daughter, Paciencia Delgado, who mentioned that her father wished to see him.
    • Upon entering the house, Remigio Delgado informed him of the presence of three unknown persons, dressed in blue, who were seen prowling about his residence.
    • Fernando de Fernando and Paciencia Delgado were seated on a bench near a window during their conversation.
  • The Encounter with the Unknown Man
    • At around 7 o’clock in the evening, a man dressed in dark clothes appeared approximately 4 meters from the stairs and called out “Nong Miong.”
      • Neither the accused nor Paciencia recognized the caller, and no immediate clarification was made.
    • Despite being uncertain of the man’s identity, Fernando de Fernando inquired about his intentions, to which no answer came.
    • The unknown man continued ascending the stairs while carrying a bolo (or possibly a bundle of bolos), intensifying the suspect’s sense of urgency and alarm.
  • The Accused’s Reaction and the Use of Force
    • Fernando de Fernando first fired a shot in the air, presumably to warn or dissuade the perceived intruder.
    • Observing that the unknown man persisted in advancing, the accused then discharged his revolver at him.
    • The unknown man subsequently fled to a neighbor’s house (Leon Torres’ residence), where, after placing his bolos on a table, he collapsed and died.
    • Remigio Delgado, who was in the kitchen and recognized the voice of the deceased (Buenaventura Paulino), confronted the accused.
      • When questioned, Fernando de Fernando casually remarked, “Let me go, that is a cross eyed person.”
      • He then proceeded to notify superior authorities by telephoning the chief of police from the residence of the barrio teniente, Santiago Torres.
  • Physical and Psychological Considerations
    • The body examination revealed that a bullet had penetrated the base of the neck on the right, embedding itself on the left side beneath the skin.
    • The accused’s status as a law enforcement officer and prior notice regarding suspicious persons contributed to his heightened state of alert.
    • The unknown man’s appearance, attire resembling that of the escaped Moro prisoners, and his manner of calling “Nong Miong” misled Fernando de Fernando.
    • The uncertainty and lack of verification from Paciencia Delgado compounded the accused’s mistaken impression, leading him to believe he was thwarting an imminent wrongdoer.
    • In the heat of the moment, influenced by fear and his duty as an officer, the accused failed to ascertain the true identity of the individual, who later was established to be related to the homeowner.

Issues:

  • Determination of Criminal Liability
    • Whether the actions of Fernando de Fernando, though taken in a mistaken belief of apprehending a wrongdoer, could be characterized as constituting murder.
    • Whether his conduct should be excused under the doctrine of acting in defense of persons and property in the absence of malicious intent.
  • Appropriate Classification of the Crime
    • Whether the killing of the unknown man, Buenaventura Paulino, amounted to murder or a lesser form of homicide.
    • Whether the requisite elements of malice aforethought for murder were present given the accused’s state of mind and circumstances.
  • Assessment of Negligence
    • Whether the accused’s failure to verify the identity of the individual involved a lack of the ordinary diligence required by his duty.
    • Whether his actions could be requalified as “reckless negligence” leading to criminal liability for homicide.

Ruling:

  • (Subscriber-Only)

Ratio:

  • (Subscriber-Only)

Doctrine:

  • (Subscriber-Only)

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur helps you analyze cases smarter to comprehend faster—building context before diving into full texts.