People v. Bindoy, 56 Phil 15 (1931)
People v. Bindoy, 56 Phil 15 (1931)
People v. Bindoy, 56 Phil 15 (1931)
Bindoy, 56 Phil 15 (1931) There is no evidence that Emigdio took part in the fight between Bindoy and Pacas.
Neither is there any indication that the accused was aware of Emigdio Omamdam's
presence in the place, for, according to the testimony of the witnesses, the latter
passed behind the combatants when he left his house to satisfy his curiosity. There
was no disagreement or ill feeling between Bindoy and Omamdam, on the contrary, it
appears they were nephew and uncle, respectively, and were on good terms with
each other. Bindoy did not try to wound Pacas, and instead of wounding him, he hit
G.R. No. L-34665 August 28, 1931 Omamdam; he was only defending his possession of the bolo, which Pacas was
trying to wrench away from him, and his conduct was perfectly lawful.
The record shows that in the afternoon of May 6, 1930, a disturbance arose in The witness for the defense, Gaudencio Cenas, corroborates the defendant to the
a tuba wineshop in the barrio market of Calunod, municipality of Baliangao, Province effect that Pacas and Bindoy were actually struggling for the possession of the bolo,
of Occidental Misamis, started by some of the tuba drinkers. There were Faustino and that when the latter let go, the former had pulled so violently that it flew towards
Pacas (alias Agaton), and his wife called Tibay. One Donato Bindoy, who was also his left side, at the very moment when Emigdio Omamdam came up, who was
there, offered some tuba to Pacas' wife; and as she refused to drink having already therefore hit in the chest, without Donato's seeing him, because Emigdio had passed
done so, Bindoy threatened to injure her if she did not accept. There ensued an behind him. The same witness adds that he went to see Omamdam at his home later,
interchange of words between Tibay and Bindoy, and Pacas stepped in to defend his and asked him about his wound when he replied: "I think I shall die of this wound."
wife, attempting to take away from Bindoy the bolo he carried. This occasioned a And then continued: "Please look after my wife when I die: See that she doesn't
disturbance which attracted the attention of Emigdio Omamdam, who, with his family, starve," adding further: "This wound was an accident. Donato did not aim at me, nor I
lived near the market. Emigdio left his house to see what was happening, while at him: It was a mishap." The testimony of this witness was not contradicted by any
Bindoy and Pacas were struggling for the bolo. In the course of this struggle, Bindoy rebuttal evidence adduced by the fiscal.
succeeded in disengaging himself from Pacas, wrenching the bolo from the latter's
hand towards the left behind the accused, with such violence that the point of the bolo We have searched the record in vain for the motive of this kind, which, had it existed,
reached Emigdio Omamdam's chest, who was then behind Bindoy. 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., 47), 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, we are of opinion and so hold, that the appellant is
entitled to acquittal according to article 8, No. 8, Penal Code. Wherefore, the
judgment appealed from is reversed, and the accused Donato Bindoy is hereby
acquitted with costs de oficio. So ordered.
Avanceña, C.J., Johnson, Street, Malcolm, Romualdez, Villa-Real, and Imperial, JJ.,
concur.