THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS VS.

FERNANDO DE FERNANDO

G.R. No. L-24978

March 27,1926

Ponente:Villa-Real, J.

FACTS:

- This is in appeal for the judgment of the Court of First Instance of Zamboanga finding the defendant
guilty of the crime murder and was sentenced to suffer the penalty of twenty years cadena temporal and
the sum of 1,000 to indemnify the heirs of the deceased and to pay the costs.

-On the day before the crime herein stated happened, several Moro prisoners escaped from the Penal
Colony of San Ramon Zamboanga.

-Due to this incident, the residents of Municahan, Zamboanga were alarmed by the presence of three
suspicious looking persons who were prowling around their place. Remigio Delgado, one of Municahans
residents informed Fernando de Fernando, the municipal policeman regarding the matter when the latter
passed their house. At around 7 oclock at night, while the two are talking, a person appeared in the dark
wearing dark clothes at about 4 meters from the stairs, calling Nong Miong. No one knew who the
person was, Fernando asked what he wanted but the person did not answer and continued advancing
with bolo in hand. Because of this, Fernando fired a shot in the air and upon seeing that the person
continued approaching, he fired at him and thus killing the unknown person. He turned out to be
Buenaventura Paulino, the nephew of the owner of the house.

ISSUE:

Whether or not Fernando de Fernando is liable for murder.

HELD:

No. The appellant is only guilty of homicide through reckless negligence.

The appearance of the man, his silence and his action of continuously ascending the stairs with a bolo in
his hand undoubtedly caused the accused to believe that the unknown person was one of the three
persons said to be prowling around the place. The accused however failed to exercise reasonable
diligence by not considering the fact that the unknown person called Nong Miong which indicated that
the approaching person might have been a friend or relative of the owner of the house. Even so, there
was no malicious intent on his part because he was only trying to protect the family from any attack.

In view of the foregoing, the previous judgment was reversed, the accused cannot be held liable for
murder but only that of homicide through reckless negligence.