PEOPLE VS BINDOY

GR No. L-34665; August 28, 1931

Villamor, J.

TOPIC: Art. 4. Criminal liability. — Criminal liability shall be incurred:

1. By any person committing a felony (delito) although the wrongful act done be different from
that which he intended.
2. By any person performing an act which would be an offense against persons or property,
were it not for the inherent impossibility of its accomplishment or an account of the employment
of inadequate or ineffectual means.

FACTS:
In the afternoon of May 6, 1930, a disturbance arose in a tuba wine shop. Donato Bindoy,
appellant, offered some tuba to Faustino Paca's wife, Tibay. She refused because she already
had one, but Bindoy threatened to injure her if she did not accept. Pacas stepped in to defend
his wife, attempting to take away from Bindoy the bolo he carried. Emigdio Omamdam who
came to the wine shop to see what’s happening, instead got stabbed in the chest by Bindoy.
This happened when Bindoy succeeded in disengaging himself from Pacas, wrenching the bolo
from the latter's hand towards the left behind the accused and with such violence that the point
of the bolo reached Omamdam's chest who was then behind Bindoy.

ISSUE: Whether or not Bindoy is criminally liable?

HELD:
No. Bindoy is not criminally liable.
There is no evidence to show that Bindoy deliberately and intentionally killed Omamdam. The
witness for the defense 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 had
pulled so violently that it flew towards Omamdam, who was therefore hit in the chest, without
Bindoy's seeing him, because Omamdam had passed behind him. The testimony of this witness
was not contradicted by any rebuttal evidence adduced by the fiscal.
If, in the struggle, the defendant had attempted to wound his opponent, and instead of doing so,
had wounded Omamdam, he would be liable for his act, since whoever willfully commits a
felony or a misdemeanor incurs criminal liability, although the wrongful act done is different from
that which he intended.
However, this is not the case here. Bindoy did not try to wound Pacas. He was only trying to
defend his possession of the bolo, which Pacas was trying to wrench away from him. His
conduct was perfectly lawful.
The Court therefore acquitted Bindoy based on the facts stated.
"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."