US v Bumanglag et al.!

No. 5318 | December 23, 1909 | J. Torres

FACTS:!

1. Night of Jan 2, 1909 - Rafael Bumanglag, an inhabitant of pueblo of San Nicolas, Ilocos Norte,
missed 4 baares or 40 bundles of palay which were kept in his granary in Payas, barrio No. 16
of the said pueblo.!

2. He proceed to search for them on the following morning and found them in an inclosed field
planted with sugar cane, at a distance of about 100 meters from his granary. For the purpose of
ascertaining who had done it, he left the palay there. 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.!

3. A man, who turned out to be Guillermo Ribis, appeared and approached the palay and
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. !

4. Ribis fell down and died instantly. Bumanglag et al presumed Ribis was the author of several
robberies and thefts that had occurred in the place.!

5. Provincial fiscal filed a complaint charging Bumanglag, Bundoc and Ribao with the crime of
homicide. The trial judge sentenced the 3 caused to the penalty of 14 yrs 8 months 1 day of
reclusion temporal, with accessories, and payment of P1,000 indemnity to the heirs of the
deceased.!

6. Only Gregorio Bundoc appealed from the said sentence. He said he assaulted and killed the
deceased, with the help of his co-defendants, in order to defend himself from an attack made
by deceased with a bolo.!

!
!
ISSUE / HELD / RATIO!
!

1. WON Bundoc should be acquitted based on plea of self defines!

!
> NO. Unless the accused was first unlawfully attacked, it is not proper to admit the plea
!
of self defense and exempt him from criminal responsibility. It is necessary, in order !
!
that such defines shall be effective, that the same shall be proven as well as the crime
!
charged.!
!
> In this case, defendants declared that they only used sticks against Ribis but !
!
examination of health officer Felipe Barba of the latters body showed that serious !
!
wounds had been inflicted with cutting and stabbing weapons.!
!
> Also, the bolo worn by the deceased was still in its sheath and hanging from his waist
!
when he fell and died. Therefore, it cannot 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.!
!
> Bundoc is guilty of the crime of homicide as co-principal by direct participation.!

2. WON defense of property (palay) should extinguish the crime committed by respondents!
!
> NO. It is only a mitigating circumstance which will lower the penalty.!
!
> Mitigating circumstance No. 7 of Art 9 of Penal Code should be taken into account !
!
because the defendant acted with loss of reason and self-control on seeing that Ribis
!
was taking material possession of the palsy seized and hidden by him the previous !
!
night thus prejudicing the respondents who laboured to provide themselves and their
!
families with subsistence.!

US v Bumanglag et al.!
No. 5318 | December 23, 1909 | J. Torres
!
!
!
!
!
!
!

> Special circumstance of Art 11 of Penal Code should also be considered in favour of !
the accused, in view of the erroneous and quite general belief that it is legal to punish a
thief who deprived them the fruits of their arduous labours.!
> These 2 circumstances (Arts 9 & 11) are considered especially admissible in the !
present case, without any aggravating circumstance, and the determine (according to
Art 81, Rule 5 of Penal Code), the imposition of the penalty immediately inferior to that
prescribed by law, and in its minimum degree.!

*Dispositive:!
!
> Gregorio Bundoc (only one who appealed) is sentenced to the penalty of 6 yrs and 1
!
day of prision mayor, including accessories, to indemnify the heirs of the deceased in
!
the sum of P1,000 jointly or severally with his co-defendants and to pay 1/3 of the costs
!
of both instances!