PEOPLE Vs BINDOY
G.R. No.: 124360 November 5, 1997
Facts:
In the afternoon of May 6, 1930, a disturbance arose in tuba wine shop in the barrio market of Calunod, Municipality of Baliangao, Province of Occidental Misamis, started by some of the tuba drinkers. There were Faustino Pacas and his wife. Bindoy, who was also there, offered some tuba to Paca’s wife from which he threatened to injure if she didn’t accept. This resulted to interchange of words between Bindoy and Paca’s wife. Pacas, in defense of his wife, attempted to take away from Bindoy the bolo he carried. The commotion attracted the attention of Emigdio Omamdam to cease the fight. In the course of Pacas and Bindoy struggling for the bolo, Bindoy succeeded in disengaging himself from Pacas, wrenching the bolo from the hand towards the left behind the accused from which the point of the bolo reached Omamdam’s chest who was then behind Bindoy.
Issue:
Whether or Not the defendant is legally responsible for the crime of homicide
Ruling:
No, the defendant is not legally responsible for his offense because there’s no evidence to show that he did so deliberately and with the intention of committing a crime. In US vs. Carlos to wit: 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 he tempted the mind of the guilty person to indulge the criminal act. Thus, the appellant shall be entitled to acquittal according to Article 8, No. 8 of the Penal Code.
Images from this site are from Unsplash and Pexels.