2.) PEOPLE VS.

BINDOY
G.R NO. 34665
August 28, 1931

FACTS:
The appellant was sentenced by the court of First Instance of
Occidental Misamis to the penalty of 12 years and one day of
reclusion temporal, with the accessories of law, to indemnify the heirs
of the deceased in the amount of P1, 000 and to pay the costs. The
crime charge against the accused is homicide, according to the
following information.

That on or about the 6th of May, 1930, in the barrio of Calunod,

Municipality of Baliangao, Province of Occidental Misamis, the
accused Bindoy offered a tuba to Tibay, Pacas wife and threatened
to inflict injury upon her if she will refuse. However, Pacas come to
rescue his wife against Bindoy who at that time carried a bolo. When
Bindoy and Pacas struggling with the bolo, Omamdam come to the
rescue however, he was accidentally hit in the chest by Bindoy who
didn’t notice that the latter was behind him. The trial court held that
Bindoy was guilty of the crime of homicide.

The accused appealed from the judgment of the trial court, and
his counsel in this instance contends that the court erred in finding
him guilty beyond reasonable doubt, and in convicting him of the
crime homicide.

ISSUE:
Whether or not the crime of which Bindoy was found guilty of
can be mitigated on the ground of accident, and if he was entitled of
acquittal according to Article 8, No. 8 of the Revised Penal Code.

RULING/RATIO:
Yes. Decision is reversed. Bindoy is acquitted according to
Article 8, No. 8 of the Revised PenalCode. The witness for the defense,
Gaudencio Cenas, corroborates the defendant to the effect that Pacas
and Bindoy were actually struggling for the possession of the bolo,
and that when the latter let go, the former pulled so violently that it
flew towards his left side, at the very moment when Emigdio
Omamdam came up, who was therefore hit in the chest, without
Donato’s seeing him, because Emigdio had passed behind him.
The same witness adds that he went to see Omamdam at his
home later, and asked him about his wound when he replied: “I think
I shall die in this wound” and then he continued: “please look after
my wife when I die: see that she doesn’t starve”, adding further: “this
wound was an accident. Donato did not aim at me, nor I at him: it
was a mishap”. The testimony of this witness was not contradicted
by any rebuttal evidenced adduced by the fiscal.

The court searched the record in vain for the motive of this kind,
which it existed, would have greatly facilitated the solution of this
case. And we deem it well to repeat what this court said in United
States vs. Carlos 15, Phil., to wit: “the attention of prosecuting
officers, and especially of provincial fiscals, directed to the
importance of definitely ascertaining and proving, when possible, the
motives which actuated the commission of a crime under
investigation. In many criminal cases one of the most important aids
in completing the proof of the commission of the crime by the accused
is the introduction of evidence disclosing the motives which tempted
the mind of the guilty person to indulge the criminal act”.

In view of the evidence before us, the court held, that the
appellant is entitled to acquittal according to Article 8, No.8 Penal
Code. Wherefore, the judgment appealed is reversed, and the accused
Donato Bindoy is hereby acquitted with cost de officio.