Case Summary (G.R. No. 34665)
Factual Background
On the afternoon of May 6, 1930, a disturbance erupted at a tuba wineshop in the barrio market of Calunod, municipality of Baliangao, Province of Occidental Misamis. Present were Faustino Pacas (alias Agaton) and his wife Tibay, and Donato Bindoy. Bindoy offered tuba to Tibay, who refused, and a verbal quarrel ensued. Pacas sought to defend his wife and attempted to take from Bindoy a bolo which Bindoy carried, producing a physical struggle over the weapon. Emigdio Omamdam, who lived nearby, left his home to observe the disturbance and passed behind the combatants. In the struggle Bindoy disengaged and, wrenching the bolo to his left behind him with force, the point of the bolo struck Omamdam in the chest, inflicting a wound that caused his instant death. There was no evidence that Omamdam joined the fight or that Bindoy knew of Omamdam’s presence. The record indicated family ties and amicable relations between Bindoy and Omamdam; no prior ill feeling or motive appeared.
Trial Court Proceedings
The trial court found the defendant guilty of homicide and sentenced him to 12 years and one day of reclusion temporal, with the accessories of law, ordered him to indemnify the heirs of the deceased in the amount of P1,000, and rendered judgment for costs. Bindoy appealed from that judgment, contesting the sufficiency of the evidence to sustain a conviction beyond reasonable doubt.
Evidence Presented
Prosecution witnesses included Pacas and the deceased’s widow, Carmen Angot, who testified that they saw the accused stab Omamdam with his bolo; the sanitary inspector described the chest wound as consistent with the size of the point of Bindoy’s bolo. Defense testimony included Gaudencio Cenas, who corroborated that Pacas and Bindoy struggled for possession of the bolo and that when it flew toward Bindoy’s left side Omamdam passed behind them and was struck without Bindoy’s seeing him. Cenas also recounted that Omamdam, before dying, told him the wound was accidental and that Bindoy did not aim at him. The widow testified that Bindoy made a similar statement to her while her husband lay dying. The prosecution offered no rebuttal evidence as to motive, and the record contained no proof of ill will or prior quarrel between Bindoy and Omamdam.
The Parties’ Contentions
The appellant maintained that the trial court erred in convicting him because the prosecution failed to prove criminal intent beyond reasonable doubt and because the wound was accidental, inflicted in the course of a lawful effort to retain possession of his bolo. The People argued that witnesses had seen Bindoy stab Omamdam and that the accused thus caused the death, warranting conviction for homicide under article 404 of the Penal Code.
Issue on Appeal
The issue was whether the evidence proved that the accused acted with the malice or criminal intent requisite for homicide, or whether the killing occurred accidentally during a lawful struggle for the bolo, thus precluding criminal liability under the Penal Code.
Ruling of the Court
The Court reversed the conviction and acquitted Donato Bindoy. The Court held that the evidence established that the wound which caused Omamdam’s death was inflicted without criminal intent and that the circumstances warranted acquittal under article 8, No. 8, Penal Code. The Court ordered acquittal with costs de oficio.
Legal Basis and Reasoning
The Court recognized that the record undisputedly established that Bindoy’s bolo caused the fatal wound, but it found ample evidence that the stabbing occurred in the course of a struggle between Bindoy and Pacas over possession of the bolo and without any deliberate aim at Omamdam, who had merely come to observe. The Court noted that if the accused had deliberately sought to wound Pacas and had instead wounded Omamdam, liability would attach under Art. 1 of the Penal Code, which imputes criminal responsibility when the wrongful act done differs from that intended. However, the Court found no proof that Bindoy attempted to wound Pacas or that he was aware of Omamdam’s presence. The testimony of the defense witness Gaudencio Cenas, and the dying declarations reported by th
...continue reading
Case Syllabus (G.R. No. 34665)
Parties and Procedural Posture
- THE PEOPLE OP THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS, Plaintiff and Appellee, prosecuted the criminal information charging homicide under article 404 of the Penal Code.
- Donato Bindoy, Defendant and Appellant, was convicted by the Court of First Instance of Occidental Misamis and appealed to the Court.
- The trial court sentenced the accused to twelve years and one day of reclusion temporal, with the accessories of law, ordered indemnity of P1,000 to the heirs of the deceased, and imposed costs.
- The Supreme Court, through an opinion by Villamor, J., entertained the appeal and reviewed the conviction and the evidence.
- The Supreme Court reversed the conviction and acquitted the accused pursuant to article 8, No. 8, Penal Code, and ordered costs de oficio.
Citation
- The decision appears in 56 Phil. 15 and bears the header G. R. No. 34665. August 28, 1931.
Key Factual Allegations
- A disturbance arose in a tuba wineshop in the barrio market of Calunod, municipality of Baliangao, Province of Occidental Misamis, on the afternoon of May 6, 1930.
- The conflict began when Donato Bindoy offered tuba to the wife of Faustino Pacas (alias Agaton), who refused and exchanged words with the accused.
- Pacas attempted to take away the bolo from Bindoy, and the two struggled for possession of the bolo.
- Emigdio Omamdam left his nearby house to see the disturbance and passed behind the combatants at the moment the bolo was wrenched toward the left.
- The point of the bolo reached Omamdam’s chest and inflicted a serious wound which caused his instant death.
Witness Testimony
- The sanitary inspector described the fatal wound in a manner consistent with the size of the point of Bindoy’s bolo.
- Pacas and the deceased’s widow, Carmen Angot, testified that they saw Bindoy stab Omamdam with the bolo.
- The witness Gaudencio Cenas testified that the bolo flew toward Bindoy’s left side during the struggle and struck Omamdam, whom Bindoy did not see because Omamdam had passed behind him.
- Omamdam made statements to Cenas asserting that the wound was an accident and that Donato did not aim at me, and he made similar statements to his wife before dying.
- The testimony of Cenas was not contradicted by any rebuttal evidence adduced by the fiscal.
Issues
- Whether the prosecution proved beyond a reasonable doubt that Donato Bindoy willfully and with malice killed Emigdio Omamdam in violation of article 404 of the Penal Code.
- Whether the circumstances supported criminal liability under Art. 1 of the Penal Code for an unintended injury occurring during an attempt to wound another person.
- Whether the evidence justified conviction for homicide or required acquittal under article 8, No. 8, Penal Code.
Contentions of the Parties
- The prosecution contended that the eyewitnesses and the sanitary inspector established that Bindoy stabbed Omamdam and caused his death.
- The defense contended that the fatal wound occurred accidentally during a lawful struggle for the bolo and that Bindoy lacked the intention or malice to commit a crime.
- The defense further relied on dying declarations and uncontradicted eyewitness accounts to show the absence of deliberate criminal intent.
Court's Findings of Fact
- The Court found that Bindoy caused the wound that produced Omamdam’s death.
- The Court found no evidence that Omamdam took part in the fight or that any ill feeling or motive existed between Bindoy and Omamdam, who appeared to be nephew and uncle respectively.
- The Court found credible the testimony that Bindoy was struggling to retain possession of the bolo and that the bolo struck Omamdam as he passed behind the combatants without Bindoy's knowledge.
Court's Reasoning
- The Court acknowledged the general principle in Art. 1 of the Penal Code that one who willfully commits a felony is criminally liable even if the wrongful act differs from that intended, but found that the evidence did not establish an attempt by Bindoy to wound Pacas or to commit any deliberate felony.
- The Court gave weight to the uncontradicted testimony and the dying declaration of Omamdam that the wound was accidental and that Donato did not aim at me.
- The absence of any proved motive or hostile relation between Bindoy and Omamdam reinforced the Court’s conclusion that malice and criminal intent were not shown.
- The Court noted the prosecutorial duty to ascertain and prove motive when possible and cited United States vs. Carlos in support of the evidentiary value of motive in criminal cases.
Doctrinal Holdings
- The Court held that where the evidence shows that a killing occurred without criminal intent and where dying declarations and uncontradicted eyewitness testimony support accidental causation, the accused is entitled to acquittal under article 8, No. 8, Penal Code.
- The Court reaffirmed that the absence of motive and the presence of credible exculpatory testimony may negate the requisite criminal intent for homicide.
- The Court confirmed that proof of the causal act alone does not suffice when the prosecution fails to establish voluntariness and malice beyond reasonable doubt.
Ruling and Disposition
- The Court reversed the judgment of the Court of First Instance of Occidental Misamis and acquitted Donato Bindoy of the