POP vs.

BINDOY (CASE BRIEF)

G.R. No. L-34665 AUGUST 28, 1931



FACTS:
On May 6, 1930, Donato Bindoy offered some tuba to Tibay, Faustino Pacas' wife. She refused and
Bindoy threatened to injure her if she did not accept. Pacas stepped in to defend his wife and
attempted to take away from Bindoy the bolo he carried. The disturbance attracted the attention of
Emigdio Omamdam. In the course of the struggle, Bindoy succeeded in disengaging himself from
Pacas, wrenching the bolo from the latter's hand, with such violence that the point of the bolo
reached Omamdam's chest, who was then behind Bindoy. The trial court held that Bindoy was
guilty of the crime of homicide. Bindoy appealed, alleging that the death of Omamdam was caused
accidentally and without malicious intent.

ISSUE:
WON the crime of which Bindoy was found guilty of can be mitigated on the ground of accident.

HELD:
Yes. Decision is reversed. Bindoy is acquitted according to Article 8, No. 8 of the Revised Penal
Code

RATIO:
1. There is no evidence to show that Bindoy deliberately and intentionally killed Omamdam.
No evidence that Omamdam took part in the fight between Bindoy and Pacas.
No evidence that Bindoy was aware of Omamdam's presence.
No evidence that there was disagreement or ill feelings between Bindoy & Omamdam. On
the contrary, they were nephew & uncle, & were on good terms with each other.

2. 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.

3. 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.
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.