You are on page 1of 8

G.R No.

L-29481

People of the Philippines v. Pambaya Bayambao

October 31, 1928

Gullas, Misa, Gullas, and Tuano – Appellant

Attorney- General Jaranilla for Appellee

Facts:

Pambaya Bayambao was charged with the crime of murder, and was found guilty by Court of
First Instance of Lanao and was sentenced to twenty years Cadena Temporal accessories of
law, costs and to indemnify the heirs of the deceased in the sum of 1000.

He doesn’t deny having caused the deceased’s death. He alleges, however, that he did it by
mistake, believing that the deceased was a malefactor who attacked him in the dark.

He said that while his wife was cooking she called out and said that someone has thrown a
stone at their house. So he took his revolver and went down. Having gone under the house and
around but did not see anyone, he was about to go upstairs when he heard a noise and saw a
black figure that rushed at him with his hands lifted up as if to strike at him, Pambaya became
frightened and fired at it.

He thought it was an outlaw and his brother-in-law thought so too. He did not have anytime to
shout because the man was already near, fearing h would attack with his kampilan or dagger,
he shot him before he would kill him. He thought his brother-in-law was an outlaw because his
wife screamed that there were evildoers below, and in ther place there are many outlaws and
those outlaws hate Pambaya because he helps the government to collect taxes.

The wife of the victim, Morid, gave another version of the occurrence. She testified that the
accused’s wife informed him that someone had thrown a stone at the house, the accused
suggested that the deceased go down and see who was throwing stones at them. The
deceased then told the accused that there was no one under the house. the accused suggested
that the deceased go down and see who was throwing stones at them; that the deceased went
down and told the accused that there was no one under the house; that thereupon the accused,
telling him to wait there for he was going to use his flashlight, went down carrying an automatic
revolver in his right hand and a flashlight in the left; that, on coming downstairs the accused
asked the deceased if the hens there belonged to him, and the latter asked the accused to
focus his light there in order to gather all the hens together; that at this the accused shot the
deceased, whose wife peered out of the door and saw her husband with the accused focusing
his flashlight on him and then firing at him again; that the deceased told Pambaya that he was
wounded; that the deceased's wife upbraided the accused telling him that he did wrong, and
asked why he had shot the deceased; that the accused turned upon her telling her to shut up or
he would shoot her also.
Issue:

Whether or not the offense made by the defendant be considered as a crime of murder.

Ruling:

No, the accused's narration seems natural. And as it is corroborated not only by his wife's
testimony, but on some points by that of Lieutenant Cramer and Sergeant Tumindog, to the
effect that immediately after the occurrence the accused betook himself to the commanding
officer of the place in order to give an account of the incident, and to ask for prompt medical
help for his unexpected victim, it cannot but produce in the mind a conviction that what
happened to the unfortunate Mangutara was an accident, without fault or guilt on the part of the
herein appellant.

The latter, on that occasion, acted from the impulse of an uncontrollable fear of an ill at least
equal in gravity, in the belief that the deceased was a malefactor who attacked him with a
kampilan or dagger in hand, and for this reason, he was guilty of no crime and is exempt from
criminal liability (art. 8, No. 10, Penal Code.)

Furthermore, his ignorance or error of fact was not due to negligence or bad faith, and this
rebuts the presumption of malicious, intent accompanying the act of killing. In an case, this court
acquitted the accused (U.S. vs. Ah Chong, 15 Phil., 488), and we deem the doctrine laid down
in that case applicable to this one. The judgment appealed from is reversed and the appellant
acquitted, with costs de officio, and the other pronouncements in his favor. So ordered.
G.R. No. L-10678 August 17, 1915

THE UNITED STATES, plaintiff-appelle,


vs.
MANUEL BAUTISTA, defendant-appellant.

Mauricio Ilagan for appellant.


Attorney-General Avanceña for appellee.

Facts

This defendant was charged with the crime of assault upon agents of the authorities and
insulting them. Upon said complaint the defendant was arrested, arraigned, tried, found guilty,
and sentenced by the Honorable Vicente Nepomuceno to be imprisoned for a period of four
years two months and one day of prision correccional, with the accessory penalties of article 61
of the Penal Code, to pay a fine of P300, and in case of insolvency to suffer subsidiary
imprisonment, in accordance with cc provisions of the law, and to pay the costs. From that
sentence the defendant appealed to this court.

In this court the appellant alleges that the evidence adduced during the trial of the cause was
not sufficient to show that he was guilty of the crime charged in the complaint.

The record shows that some time in the month of November, 1914, an order of arrest was
issued for the defendant and placed in the hands of the chief of police of the municipality of
Gerona. On or about the 15th of November, the chief of police, accompanied by another
policeman, went to the house where the defendant was staying for the purpose of making the
arrest. Upon arrival at the house, inquiry was made of some of the occupants whether or not the
defendant was there. Upon being informed that he was in the house, the policeman who
accompanied the chief of police entered the house without permission and attempted to arrest
the defendant without explaining to him the cause or nature of his presence there. The
defendant, according to the declaration of the chief of police, resisted the arrest, calling to his
neighbors for assistance, using the following language: "Come here; there are some bandits
here and they are abusing me." Many of his neighbors, hearing his cry, according to the
testimony of the chief of police, immediately came to his assistance and surrounded his house.

The policeman, who accompanied the chief, in his declaration said that when he attempted to
arrest the defendant, the defendant said to him: "Why do you enter my house, you shameless
brigands?" and called to one Basilio, saying:

There are some bandits here!"

The policeman further testified that he then informed the defendant that he came there for the
purpose of arresting him, and the defendant asked him if he had an order of arrest, which
question was answered by the policeman in the affirmative. Said policeman further testified that
immediately after he had notified the defendant that he was a policeman and had an order of
arrest, the defendant submitted to the arrest without further resistance or objection.
The record shows that the resistance made by the defendant was done under the belief that the
persons who had entered his house were tulisanes. The record also shows that by declaration
of the officers’ identity he peaceably submitted and accompanied them.

Issue:

Whether or not the defendant should be charged of assault?

Ruling:

No, We do not believe that the law contemplates the punishment of persons for resistance of
the authorities under circumstances such as those which are disclosed in the present case. If
the defendant believed that those who had entered his house were, in fact, tulisanes, he was
entirely justified in calling his neighbors and making an attempt to expel them from his premises.

The record does not disclose sufficient facts to justify the sentence imposed by the lower court.
The defendant is not guilty of the crime described in the complaint.
G.R. No. L-47722 July 27, 1943

THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee,


vs.
ANTONIO Z. OANIS and ALBERTO GALANTA, defendants-appellants.

Antonio Z. Oanis in his own behalf.


Maximo L. Valenzuela for appellant Galanta.
Acting Solicitor-General Ibañez and Assistant Attorney Torres for appellee.

Facts:

Serapio Tecson accused Oanis and Galanta with crime of murder, chief of police Cabanatuan
and Corporal of the Philippine Constabulary found guilty by the lower court of homicide through
reckless imprudence and were sentenced each to an indeterminate penalty of from one year
and six months to two years and two months. Defendants appealed separately.

In the afternoon of December 24, 1938. Captain Godofredo Monsod, Constabulary Provincial
Inspector at Cabanatuan, Nueva Ecija, received from Major Guido a telegram of the following
tenor: "Information received escaped convict Anselmo Balagtas with bailarina and Irene in
Cabanatuan get him dead or alive." Captain Monsod accordingly called for his first sergeant and
asked that he be given four men. Defendant corporal Alberto Galanta, and privates Nicomedes
Oralo, Venancio Serna and D. Fernandez, upon order of their sergeant, reported at the office of
the Provincial Inspector where they were shown a copy of the above-quoted telegram and a
newspaper clipping containing a picture of Balagtas. They were instructed to arrest Balagtas
and, if overpowered, to follow the instruction contained in the telegram. The same instruction
was given to the chief of police Oanis who was likewise called by the Provincial Inspector. When
the chief of police was asked whether he knew one Irene, a bailarina, he answered that he knew
one of loose morals of the same name. Upon request of the Provincial Inspector, the chief of
police tried to locate some of his men to guide the constabulary soldiers in ascertaining
Balagtas' whereabouts, and failing to see anyone of them he volunteered to go with the party.
The Provincial Inspector divided the party into two groups with defendants Oanis and Galanta,
and private Fernandez taking the route to Rizal street leading to the house where Irene was
supposedly living. When this group arrived at Irene's house, Oanis approached one Brigida
Mallare, who was then stripping banana stalks, and asked her where Irene's room was. Brigida
indicated the place and upon further inquiry also said that Irene was sleeping with her
paramour. Brigida trembling, immediately returned to her own room which was very near that
occupied by Irene and her paramour. Defendants Oanis and Galanta then went to the room of
Irene, and an seeing a man sleeping with his back towards the door where they were,
simultaneously or successively fired at him with their .32 and .45 caliber revolvers. Awakened
by the gunshots, Irene saw her paramour already wounded, and looking at the door where the
shots came, she saw the defendants still firing at him. Shocked by the entire scene. Irene
fainted; it turned out later that the person shot and killed was not the notorious criminal Anselmo
Balagtas but a peaceful and innocent citizen named Serapio Tecson, Irene's paramour. The
Provincial Inspector, informed of the killing, repaired to the scene and when he asked as to who
killed the deceased. Galanta, referring to himself and to Oanis, answered: "We two, sir." The
corpse was thereafter brought to the provincial hospital and upon autopsy by Dr. Ricardo de
Castro, multiple gunshot which caused his death.
These are the facts found by the trial court and fully supported by the evidence, particularly by
the testimony of Irene Requinea. Appellants gave a different version of the tragedy.

According to Appellant Galanta, when he and chief of police Oanis arrived at the house, the
latter asked Brigida where Irene's room was. Brigida indicated the place, and upon further
inquiry as to the whereabouts of Anselmo Balagtas, she said that he too was sleeping in the
same room. Oanis went to the room thus indicated and upon opening the curtain covering the
door, he said: "If you are Balagtas, stand up." Tecson, the supposed Balagtas, and Irene woke
up and as the former was about to sit up in bed. Oanis fired at him. Wounded, Tecson leaned
towards the door, and Oanis receded and shouted: "That is Balagtas." Galanta then fired at
Tecson.

On the other hand, Oanis testified that after he had opened the curtain covering the door and
after having said, "if you are Balagtas stand up." Galanta at once fired at Tecson, the supposed
Balagtas, while the latter was still lying on bed, and continued firing until he had exhausted his
bullets: that it was only thereafter that he, Oanis, entered the door and upon seeing the
supposed Balagtas, who was then apparently watching and picking up something from the floor,
he fired at him.

Issue:

Whether or not Oanis and Galanta incur no liability due to innocent mistake of fact in
performance of their official duties.

Ruling:

No, Innocent mistake of fact does not apply to the case at bar. “ignorance facti excusat” applies
only when the mistake is committed without fault. the fact that the supposedly suspect was
sleeping, Oanis and Galanta could have checked whether it is the real Balagtas. The crime
committed by the appellants is not merely criminal negligence, the killing being intentional and
not accidental.
G.R. No. 165842 November 29, 2005

EDUARDO P. MANUEL,

Petitioner,

Present:

PUNO, J., Chairman,

AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, - versus - CALLEJO, SR.,

TINGA, and

CHICO-NAZARIO,* JJ.

Promulgated:

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES,

Respondent.

Facts:

This is a petition for review on certiorari of the decision of Court of appeals affirming the
decision of the Regional Trial Court of Baguio City, convicting the petitioner for the crime of
bigamy.

Eduardo P. Manuel, herein petitioner, was first married to Rubylus Gaña on July 18, 1975, who,
according to the former, was charged with estafa in 1975 and thereafter imprisoned and was
never seen again by him after his last visit in jail which was three months after the
imprisonment. Manuel met Tina B. Gandalera in January 1996 when the latter was only 21
years old. Three months after their meeting, the two got married through a civil wedding in
Baguio City without Gandalera’s knowledge of Manuel’s first marriage. In the course of their
marriage, things got rocky and Gandalera learned that Eduardo was in fact already married
when he married him. She then filed a criminal case of bigamy against Eduardo Manuel. The
latter’s defense being that his declaration of “single” in his marriage contract with Gandalera
was done because he believed in good faith that his first marriage was invalid and that he did
not know that he had to go to court to seek for the nullification of his first marriage before
marrying Tina. The Regional Trial Court ruled against him sentencing him of imprisonment of
from 6 years and 10 months to ten years, and an amount 0f P200,000.00 for moral damages.

Eduardo appealed the decision to the CA where he alleged that he was not criminally liable for
bigamy because when he married the private complainant, he did so in good faith and without
any malicious intent. The CA ruled against the petitioner but with modification on the RTC’s
decision. Imprisonment was from 2 years, months and 1 day to ten years. Pecuniary reward for
moral damages was affirmed.

Issue:

Whether or not when the petitioner committed bigamy due presuming that his first marriage was
invalid be considered as a mistake of fact.

Whether or not the Court of Appeals committed reversible error of law when it ruled that
petitioner's first wife cannot be legally presumed dead under Article 390 of the Civil Code as
there was no judicial declaration of presumptive death as provided for under Article 41 of the
Family Code.

Ruling:

No, the petitioner should be held liable for not disclosing his previous marriage and assuming
that it was invalid.

No, the Court of Appeals did not commit an error of law. The Family Code, having a retroactive
effect, amended Article 390 of the Civil Code, wherefore adding the third rule in the
requirements for a subsequent bigamous marriage to be considered valid, which are: (1) the
prior spouse have been absent for four consecutive years, (2) the spouse present has a well-
founded belief that the absent spouse is already dead, and (3) a judicial declaration of
presumptive death of the absent spouse (Armas vs Calisterio 330 SCRA 201), the third rule of
which is designed to harmonize with Article 349 of the Revised Penal Code which defines and
penalizes bigamy.