Documente Academic
Documente Profesional
Documente Cultură
SUPREME COURT penalty of fourteen years eight months and one day of reclusión temporal, with
Manila the accessories, and to the payment of an indemnity of P1,000 to the heirs of
the deceased, and the costs in equal parts, from which decision only Gregorio
EN BANC Bundoc appealed.
G.R. No. L-5318 December 23, 1909 From the facts above mentioned, fully proven in this case, the commission of
the crime of homicide, defined and punished by article 404 of the Penal Code,
THE UNITED STATES, plaintiff-appellee, is inferred, inasmuch as Guillermo Ribis was violently deprived of his life in
vs. consequence of serious wounds and bruises, some of them of a mortal nature,
RAFAEL BUMANGLAG, ET AL., defendants. - GREGORIO as appears from a certificate issued by a physician who examined the body of
BUNDOC, appellant. the deceased, and who ratified said certificate at the trial under oath.
Iñigo Bitanga for appellant. The accused Bundoc, the only appellant, pleaded not guilty, but, in the
Attorney-General Villamor for appellee. absence of justification, and his exculpatory allegation being unreasonable, it
is not proper to hold that he assaulted and killed the deceased, with the help of
his codefendants, in order to defend himself from an attack made by the
former with a bolo.
Both Gregorio Bundoc and his codefendants Bumanglag and Ribao declared
TORRES, J.: that, during the fight with the deceased Ribis, they only beat the latter with
sticks, because he unsheathed the bolo he carried; but from the examination
On the night of January 2, 1909, Rafael Bumanglag, an inhabitant of the made of the body it appeared that several serious wounds had been inflicted
pueblo of San Nicolas, Province of Ilocos Norte, missed 4 baares or 40 with cutting and stabbing weapons, besides some bruises, and according to
bundles of palay which were kept in his granary, situated in the place called the declaration of the health officer Felipe Barba, which declaration was
"Payas," barrio No. 16 of the said pueblo, and on proceeding to search for confirmed by the municipal president of Laoag, the bolo worn by the deceased
them on the following morning, he found them in an inclosed filed which was was in its sheath and hanging from his waist; therefore it can not be concluded
planted with sugar cane, at a distance of about 100 meters from his granary; that the deceased even intended to assault his murderers with his bolo either
thereupon, for the purpose of ascertaining who had done it, he left before he was attacked by them or during the fight, because, had Ribis made
the palay there, and that night, accompanied by Gregorio Bundoc, Antonio use of the bolo he carried sheathed, the bolo would have been found
Ribao, and Saturnino Tumamao, he waited near the said field for the person unsheathed at the place where the fight occurred, and it is not reasonable to
who might return to get the palay. A man, who turned out to be Guillermo believe that, before falling to the ground in a dying condition he succeeded in
Ribis, made his appearance and approaching the palay, attempted to carry it sheathing his bolo, in which condition it was found on his body.
away with him, but at that instant Bumanglag, Bundoc, and Ribao assaulted
the presumed thief with sticks and cutting and stabbing weapons; as a result of It is therefore indisputable that, without any prior illegal aggression and the
the struggle which ensued the person attacked fell down and died instantly, other requisites which would fully or partially exempt the accused from criminal
Bumanglag and his companions believing that Guillermo Ribis was the author responsibility, the appellant and his two companions assaulted Guillermo Ribis
of several robberies and thefts that had occurred in the place. with sticks and cutting and stabbing arms, inflicting upon him serious and
mortal wounds, and therefore, the said accused is guilty of the crime of
In view of the foregoing, the provincial fiscal filed a complaint on January 15, homicide as co-principal by direct participation, fully convicted, together with
1909, charging Rafael Bumanglag, Gregorio Bundoc, and Antonio Ribao with his codefendants who are already serving their sentence.
the crime of homicide, and the trial judge, on February 5 of the present year,
In the commission of the crime we should take into account the mitigating The defendants in this case were convicted of the crime of homicide in causing
circumstance No. 7 of article 9 of the Penal Code, because the defendant the death of Guillermo Ribis, and sentenced to fourteen years eight months
acted with loss of reason and self-control on seeing that Guillermo Ribis was and one day of reclusión temporal, accessories, indemnification, and costs.
taking material possession of the palay seized and hidden by him on the
previous night, thus committing one of the numerous unlawful acts perpetrated Gregorio Bundoc is the only one who appealed.
at the place, to the damage and prejudice of those who, by their labor
endeavor to provide themselves with the necessary elements for their On the night of the 21st of February, 1909, Rafael Bumanglag, a resident of
subsistence and that of their families. The special circumstance established by the pueblo of San Nicolas, Province of Ilocos Norte, found missing from his
article 11 of the same code should be also considered in favor of the accused, granary, situated at a place called Payas, barrio No. 16 of said pueblo,
in view of the erroneous and quite general belief that it is legal to punish, even 4 baaresand 40 manojos of palay, and the inclosure within which
to excess the thief who, in defiance of law and justice, while refusing to work, the palay was situated torn down and partly destroyed. The following morning
devotes himself to depriving his neighbors of the fruits of their arduous labors; he discovered a portion of the missing palay in a field of sugar cane about 100
these two circumstances are considered in the present case as especially meters from the granary from which it was taken. For the purpose of
admissible, without any aggravating circumstance, and they determine, discovering who was the author of the crime and of bringing him to justice, he
according to article 81, rule 5, of the Penal Code, the imposition of the penalty secured the assistance of Gregorio Bundoc, Antonio Ribao, and Saturnino
immediately inferior to that prescribed by the law, and in its minimum degree, Tumamao, the first being his cousin and the others in his neighbors and
and therefore — friends, to watch with him the succeeding night in the vicinity of thepalay,
acting upon the expectation that the robber would return to secure it. Some
By virtue of the foregoing considerations, we are of the opinion that, the time after dark of the night succeeding the robbery, Bumanglag, and the other
judgment appealed from being reversed with respect to Gregorio Bundoc only, persons mentioned, gathered together in said field of sugar cane, near to
the latter should be, and is hereby, sentenced to the penalty of six years and the palay in question, placing themselves so as to surround it in a measure,
one day of prisión mayor, to the accessories of article 61 of the code, to and awaited the appearance of the malefactor. At about 10 o'clock there came
indemnify the heirs of the deceased jointly or severally with his codefendants, into the field the deceased, Guillermo Ribis, who approached the palay, picked
in the sum of P1,000, and to pay one-third the costs of both instances. So it up, and started to carry it away. At this moment Bumanglag presented
ordered. himself in front of Ribis, stopping his further progress, whereupon Ribis
attacked him viciously with a bolo and they engaged in a hand-to-hand
Arellano, C. J., Mapa, and Johnson, JJ., concur. struggle. Bumanglag, upon finding that he was likely to be killed by the robber
because of his great strength and the fact that he was armed with a bolo,
called for assistance, whereupon his three companions rushed forward and
seeing the extremity in which Bumanglag was, joined in the struggle for the
purpose of his protection. Within a few minutes Ribis fell to the earth mortally
injured and soon expired.
The only proofs in the trial relating to the death are the statements and
testimony of the defendants themselves. Immediately after the death of Ribis,
Separate Opinions
they, acting voluntarily, went to the nearest justice of the peace and stated
what had occurred. Each one signed a statement of the facts constituting the
occurrence as he understood them. Later each one of defendants testified on
the trial.
MORELAND, J., dissenting: Bundoc, in the written statement made by him before the justice of the peace,
said that at about 10 o'clock of the night in question he saw Ribis enter the
field, going toward the place where the palay was located, and a little while and here argued by the fiscal, are that (1) while the defendants claim in their
afterwards Bumanglag called him and his companions to come to his statements and testimony that the deceased attacked Bumanglag with his
assistance because a man was attacking him and that thereupon he, Bundoc bolo, nevertheless, when the body of the decedent was the nest day taken
and his companions, "went to the assistance of Bumanglag, who was fighting possession of by the justice of the peace, the bolo was still in its sheath; and
with Ribis, and, in view of the fact that it appeared that Bumanglag was not (2) that while the defendants stated and testified that they were not armed with
able to resist his adversary because he had a bolo and Bumanglag had only a any kind of weapons except bamboo sticks or clubs, still the testimony of
bamboo stick," he and his companions took part in the fight solely to protect Barba, the sanitary inspector of that district, shows that some of the wounds
his cousin and that, during the struggle that followed, the decedent was killed. upon the deceased were made with sharp instruments. Upon these two
He said further that he recognized the deceased, Ribis, as a resident of San circumstances, impugning, as it is alleged they do, the evidence of the
Nicolas, and that he was a person of bad character and was known as the defendants in their own behalf, the court below found the defendants guilty of
author of various robberies and burglaries which had occurred in that vicinity. homicide.
The statements of the other defendants are substantially the same as that of The only evidence in relation to these two circumstances is that of the justice
Bundoc. itc-alf of the peace and the sanitary inspector, who assert that when they went to
examine the body and take charge of it, the next day after the death, they
Upon the trial Bumanglag testified, relative to the acts of defendants from found the bolo in its sheath. It appears, however, that no one watched the
which the death of Ribis resulted, that Ribis came into the field, arranged body during the interval running between the time when the death occurred
the palay in handy form picked it up, and started to go away with it; that and when the body was first examined, and therefore no one knows how it was
thereupon Bumanglag told him to halt; that Ribis instantly dropped his bundle handled or what was done with or to it. As to the other point, namely, that the
to the ground and immediately attacked Bumanglag with a bolo, striking at him wounds were made with sharp instruments, it may be said that the witness
several times but failing to hit him on account of stalks of sugar cane which Barba, the sanitary inspector, who is the only one who testified in relation to
Bumanglag interposed between himself and his assailant; that, while Ribis was that matter, stated that the only two wounds that were mortal were located,
trying to kill him with his bolo, he called to his companions for help, at the one in the right side of the head, caused by a sharp instrument, the other a
same trying to defend himself with blows of his bamboo stick; that his contusion at the base of the neck upon the left side, not made with a sharp
companions soon arrival, and, between the three, they struck him several instrument. He does not say which one of the wounds caused the death of the
blows, from which he died immediately; that they carried no weapons except decedent, neither does he state the fact upon which he bases his claim that
bamboo sticks, while the deceased was armed with a large bolo. the wounds were made with sharp instruments. He is simply states his
conclusions, without presenting the facts from which such conclusions
The statement of Bumanglag made upon the trial is somewhat different from naturally spring. It is well known, however, that a wound, smooth edged and
his statement made before the justice of the peace but is more in accord with clean cut, and simulating with remarkable closeness a wound made with a
the statements of the other defendants in the case, both before the justice of sharp cutting instrument, may be and frequently is produced by a wooden
the peace upon the trial of the case. Bundoc testified that Bumanglag called for instrument or club, particularly where, as in this case, said instrument or club is
help because he was being attacked by the robber, who was armed with a extremely hard and has a sharp edge. The witness Barba was not a physician
bolo, and that he was likely to be killed at any instant, and that he and his or surgeon and had had little experience with wounds. His judgment was
companions, desiring to defend Bumanglag from his imminent peril, ran scarcely better than that of the average man. In no sense was he qualified as
forward to his assistance, and that during the fight which occurred, the an expert. Besides, and this is very important, the only wounds found upon the
deceased was killed. person of deceased were about the head, neck, and face. No wound was
found on any other part of the person. Does this look like the use of knives or
bolos by the defendants? If they had been using such weapons it is almost
These are the only proofs before us relative to the manner in which Ribis met
certain that the fatal wound would have been found in the body and not the
his death. The court below, however, refused to believe the story of
head; or, if in the head, the wound made would have been far more extensive
defendants because of certain alleged contradictory circumstances which
and ghastly than any of those found.
appear in the proofs. These circumstances, as presented by the court below
It appears from the undisputed testimony (if we except the two circumstances
above referred to ) that the decedent was a man of bad reputation; that he was
a thief, a robber, and a convicted criminal, having served at least one term in
prison for robbery; that he was known in all that country as a leader of criminal 5. He who acts in defense of the person or rights of his spouse,
bands and as an all-around desperado; that he was a man of exceptionally ascendants, descendants, or legitimate, natural, or adopted brothers or
large stature and of unusual strength; that at the time of his attack upon Rafael sisters, or of his relatives by affinity in the same degrees and those by
Bumanglag he was armed with a bolo; that on the evening before his death he consanguinity within the fourth civil degree, provided the first and
had robbed the granary of Bumanglag, taking a part of the property which he second circumstances mentioned in the foregoing number are
had stolen away with him at the time and leaving the other portion, which he attendant, and provided that in case the party attacked first gave
was unable to carry, in a place where it would be easily accessible when he provocation, the defendant took no part therein.
desired later to remove it; that on the night of the event he had returned to
carry away the balance of the property which he had stolen the night before; 6. He who acts in defense of the person or rights of a stranger,
that while in the act of taking it he was surprised and confronted by the owner provided the first and second circumstances mentioned in No. 4 are
thereof; that he immediately assailed said owner viciously with his bolo, and to attended and that the defender is not actuated by revenge,
pressed him that, for the protection of his life, he called upon his friends for resentment, or other illegal motive.
assistance; that his companions, on arriving, saw that he was likely to be killed
at any instant and they, endeavoring to save his life, attacked the decedent.
Subdivision 4 is as follows:
It is not known who among the defendants killed the decedent or what blow
4. He who acts in defense of his person or rights, provided there are
caused his death. All that is known is that in the struggle which occurred,
the following attendant circumstances:
resulting from the efforts of three of the defendants to save the life of the
fourth, the decedent met his death.
(1) Illegal aggression. lawphi 1.net
It nowhere appears, except from the fact of death itself, that the defendants
sought or intended to kill the decedent. Their sole purpose appears from the (2) Reasonable necessity of the means employed to prevent or repel it.
evidence to have been accomplished as well by disabling as by killing him; and
it must not be forgotten in this connection that the effect produced by the use (3) Lack of sufficient provocation on the part of the person defending
of their bamboo sticks was not that which is ordinarily produced. This himself.
consideration was regarded by this court as having much importance in the
case of the United States vs. Sosa (4 Phil Rep., 104). This court has, That there was an unlawful aggression seems to me to be undisputed under
moreover, held that a piece of bamboo (una simple caña partida), exactly what the evidence. The great preponderance of the testimony, in fact the undisputed
was used by defendants in the case at bar, was a weapon insufficient evidence, is to that effect. Every witness who touched the subject testified
ordinarily to put the life of a person attacked in imminent peril. (U. S. vs. De positively that the assault upon Bumanglag was made with a bolo . It is
Castro, 2 Phil. Rep., 67; U. S. vs. Mack, 8 Phil. Rep., 701). admitted that the decedent had one at the time of the assault. Nevertheless
the fiscal contends that the assault was not made with a bolo and bases that
I am convinced that there is a strong doubt of the criminal responsibility of the contention upon the single fact, before adverted to, that, many hours after the
defendants, particularly of the appellant. Article 8 of the Penal Code reads in assault, the bolo was found in its sheath on the dead man's body. The
part as follows: probative effect of that fact is founded purely in an inference which necessarily
presupposes that the bolo had not been replaced in its sheath by anyone after
The following are not delinquent and are, therefore, exempt from the death of Ribis, his body having been left unwatched, as before stated, for a
criminal liability: considerable period of time. It seems to me, however, that that inference is
met and sufficiently overcome by the manifest and perfect unreasonableness
of the assumption, which must necessarily arise from that inference, that a
man f the character f the decedent, having been caught red-handed in the A person may repel force by force in defense of his habitation or
commission of a robbery by the owner of the property against which the felony property, as well as in defense of his person, against one who
had been and was being committed, and that owner armed with a club, would manifestly intends and endeavors by violence or surprise to commit a
attack such owner with his naked hands when he carried at his side a known felony upon either, and, if need be, may kill his adversary. (25
formidable weapon with which to defend himself in precisely such an Am. & Eng. Ency. of L., 275.)
emergency. It is wholly unreasonable, if not positively unbelievable, that the
decedent, under all the circumstances of this case, did not draw his bolo. That In the case of United States vs. Brello (9 Phil. Rep., 424), the court said (p.
he did unsheath it and did attack Bumanglag therewith is the sworn statement 425):
of every witness who testified on that subject. This proof, taken in connection
with the unreasonableness of the claim that the decedent, caught red-handed The evidence of the defendant and his witnesses was to the effect that
in felony, attacked with his bare hands a man armed with a club, the man at 10 o'clock at night Candelario came to the house of the defendant,
against whose property he was in the very act of perpetrating a felony, and knocked at the door, and instead upon the defendant coming out
permitted himself to be beaten to death, when he carried at his side a saying that if he did not he would burn the house. The defendant
formidable and effective weapon of aggression as well as defense, can not be refused to go out and thereupon Candelario broke the door down,
overcome by a mere inference deduced from the circumstance that the bolo, came in and attacked the defendant with a cane, throwing him to the
many hours after the event, was found in its sheath. The entire evidence, fairly ground two or three times. He defended himself as well as he could
considered, reasonably establishes it seems to me, not only an unlawful but a and finally seized a bolo and struck Candelario in the stomach.
dangerous aggression. (Supreme court of Spain, 17 November, 1897; 6 July, Immediately after the affair the defendant presented himself to the
1898; 16 March, 1892; 11 December, 1896; 26 January, 1897; 11 December, authorities of the town, stating that had happened. It does not appear
1896; 6 April, 1904; 27 June, 1894; 30 January, 1904; 16 February, 1905; 10 that Candelario had any other weapon than a cane.
July, 1902; 27 June, 1903; 28 February, 1906; 17 March, 1888; 29 May, 1888;
13 February, 1890; 20 January, 1894; 24 October, 1895; 27 January, 1896; 11
These facts to our mind constitute a complete defense. Candelario
December, 1896; 26 January, 1897; 30 September, 1897; 10 February, 1898;
lawphi 1.net
The same doctrine is laid down in the similar case of the United States vs. The section casts upon the defendant that burden of proving
Salandanan (1 Phil. Rep., 478). (See also U. S., vs. Brello, 9 Phil. Rep., 424; circumstances of mitigation, or that justify or excuse the commission of
U. S. vs. Reyes, 1 Phil. Rep., 517; U. S. vs. Bailon, 9 Phil. Rep., 161.) the homicide. This does not mean that he must prove such
circumstances by a preponderance of the evidence, but that the
There is neither claim nor evidence that any of the defendants were actuated presumption that the killing was felonious arises from the mere proof
in their defense of Bumanglag by revenge, resentment, or other illegal motive, by the prosecution of the homicide, and the burden of proving
and from this point of view the case requires no discussion. circumstances of mitigation, etc., is thereby cast upon him. He is only
bound under this rule to produce such evidence as will create in the
As to the question of reasonable doubt. minds of the jury a reasonable doubt of his guilt of the offense
charged." (People vs. Flanagan, 60 Cal., 3; 44 Am. Rep., 52;
In discussing the questions of burden of proof and reasonable doubt in People vs. Smith, 59 Cal., 607.) "It can make no difference whether
cases involving self-defense, the courts have stated various confusing this reasonable doubt is the result of evidence on the part of the
and apparently contradictory propositions, but the general rule defendant tending show circumstances of mitigation, or that justify or
deducible from the authorities seems to be that when the prosecution excuse the killing, or from other evidence coming from him or the
has made a prima facie case against the accused, it is for him to prosecution. The well-settled rule that a defendant shall not be
introduce evidence showing self-defense, if he sets up the plea; but convicted unless the evidence proves his guilt beyond a reasonable
that if upon the whole testimony, both on the part of the State and the doubt applies to the whole and every material part of the case, no
matter whether it is as to the act of killing, or the reason for a manner
of its commission. (People vs. Bushton, 80 Cal., 160, 164;
Alexander vs. People, 96 III., 96; People vs. Riodan, 117 N. Y., 71.)
Reading the evidence in this case in the light of reason and of the principles
enunciated by the courts, I can not but feel that, under all the circumstances,
there is a strong doubt of appellant's legal responsibility for the crime charged.
In my opinion, therefore, the judgment of the court below should be reversed
and the appellant acquitted.