[ G.R. No. 5318. December 23, 1909 ] 14 Phil. 644
[ G.R. No. 5318. December 23, 1909 ]
THE UNITED STATES, PLAINTIFF AND APPELLEE, VS. RAFAEL BUMANGLAG ET AL., DEFENDANTS. GREGORIO BUNDOC, APPELLANT. D E C I S I O N
TORRES, J.:
On the night of January 2, 1909, Rafael Bumanglag, an inhabitant of the pueblo of San Nicolas, Province of Ilocos Norte, missed 4 baares or 40 bundles of palay which were kept in his granary, situated in the place called “Payas,” barrio No. 16 of the said pueblo, and on proceeding to search for them on the following morning, he found them in an inclosed field which was planted with sugar cane, at a distance of about 100 meters from his granary; there-upon, for the purpose of ascertaining who had done it, he left the palay there, and that night, accompanied by Gregorio Bundoc, Antonio Ribao, and Saturnino Tumamao, he waited near the said field for the person who might return to get the palay. A man, who turned out to be Guillermo Ribis, made his appearance and approaching the palay, attempted to carry it 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 the struggle which ensued the person attacked fell down and died instantly, Bumanglag and his companions believing that Guillermo Ribis was the author of several robberies and thefts that had occurred in the place. In view of the foregoing, the provincial fiscal filed a complaint on January 15,1909, charging Rafael Bumanglag, Gregorio Bundoc, and Antonio Ribao with the crime of homicide, and the trial judge, on February 5 of the present year, rendered judgment in the case, sentencing the three accused persons to the penalty of fourteen years eight months and one day of reclusion temporal, with 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 Bundoc appealed. 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, is inferred, inasmuch as Guillermo Ribis was violently deprived of his life in consequence of serious wounds and bruises, some of them of a mortal nature, as appears from a certificate issued by a physician who examined the body of the deceased, and who ratified said certificate at the trial under oath. The accused Bundoc, the only appellant, pleaded not guilty, but, in the 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 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 made of the body it appeared that several serious wounds had been inflicted with cutting and stabbing weapons, besides some bruises, and according to the declaration of the health officer Felipe Barba, which declaration was confirmed by the municipal president of Laoag, the bolo worn by the deceased was in its sheath and hanging from his waist; therefore it can not be concluded that the deceased even intended to assault his murderers with his bolo either before he was attacked by them or during the fight, because, had Ribis made use of the bolo he carried sheathed, the bolo would have been found unsheathed at the place where the fight occurred, and it is not reasonable to believe that, before falling to the ground in a dying condition he succeeded in sheathing his bolo, in which condition it was found on his body. It is therefore indisputable that, without any prior illegal aggression and the other requisites which would fully or partially exempt the accused from criminal responsibility, the appellant and his two companions assaulted Guillermo Ribis 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 homicide as co-principal by direct participation, fully convicted, together with his codefendants who are already serving their sentence. In the commission of the crime we should take into account the mitigating’ circumstance No. 7 of article 9 of the Penal Code, because the defendant acted with loss of reason and self-control on seeing that Guillermo Ribis was taking material possession of the palay seized and hidden by him on the previous night, thus committing one of the numerous unlawful acts perpetrated at that place, to the damage and prejudice of those who, by their labor endeavor to provide themselves with the necessary elements for their subsistence and that of their families. The special circumstance established by article 11 of the same code should be also considered in favor of the accused, in view of the erroneous and quite general belief that it is legal to punish, even to excess the thief who, in defiance of law and justice, while refusing to work, devotes himself to depriving his neighbors of the fruits of their arduous labors; these two circumstances are considered in the present case as especially admissible, without any aggravating circumstance, and they determine, according to article 81, rule 5, of the Penal Code, the imposition of the penalty immediately inferior to that prescribed by the law, and in its minimum degree, and therefore- By virtue of the foregoing considerations, we are of the opinion that, the judgment appealed from being reversed with respect to Gregorio Bundoc only, the latter should be, and is hereby, sentenced to the penalty of six years and one day of prision mayor, to the accessories of article 01 of the code, to indemnify the heirs of the deceased jointly or severally with his codefendants, in the sum of P1,000, and to pay one-third the costs of both instances. So ordered. Arellano, C. J., Mapa, and Johnson, JJ., concur.