United States vs. Bumanglag, et al.

Self-defense or defense of another is not established where the deceased’s weapon remained sheathed and the wounds indicate the use of cutting and stabbing weapons by the assailants; the killing is homicide, but the penalty may be reduced under article 81, rule 5, when the mitigating circumstances of loss of reason and self-control and the special circumstance of erroneous belief in punishing a thief are present without any aggravating circumstance.

Rafael Bumanglag was an inhabitant of San Nicolas, Ilocos Norte, and Gregorio Bundoc was his cousin. The prosecution arose under the Penal Code, which defined homicide in article 404 and provided for exemptions and mitigating circumstances in articles 8, 9, 11, and 81. The case concerned the killing of Guillermo Ribis, whom Bumanglag and his companions believed to be a thief and the author of robberies in the locality.

Rafael Bumanglag, an inhabitant of San Nicolas, Ilocos Norte, kept palay in a granary situated in Payas, barrio No. 16. On the night of January 2, 1909, he discovered that 4 baares or 40 bundles of palay were missing. The following morning, he found the palay in an enclosed field planted with sugar cane about 100 meters from his granary. To identify the thief, he left the palay there and that night, accompanied by Gregorio Bundoc, Antonio Ribao, and Saturnino Tumamao, waited near the field.

Guillermo Ribis appeared, approached the palay, and attempted to carry it away. At that instant, Bumanglag, Bundoc, and Ribao assaulted him with sticks and cutting and stabbing weapons. A struggle ensued, and Ribis fell and died instantly. Bumanglag and his companions believed that Ribis was the author of several robberies and thefts that had occurred in the place.

Bundoc and his codefendants declared that during the fight they only beat Ribis with sticks because he unsheathed the bolo he carried. The examination of the body, however, showed several serious wounds inflicted with cutting and stabbing weapons, besides bruises. Health officer Felipe Barba, confirmed by the municipal president of Laoag, testified that the bolo worn by the deceased was in its sheath and hanging from his waist. The trial court found that this contradicted the claim that Ribis had used his bolo.

The provincial fiscal filed a complaint on January 15, 1909, charging Bumanglag, Bundoc, and Ribao with homicide. The trial judge on February 5 rendered judgment convicting all three accused. The physician’s certificate, ratified under oath, showed that Ribis was violently deprived of life in consequence of serious wounds and bruises, some of them mortal. The trial court found Bundoc guilty as co-principal by direct participation and considered mitigating circumstances in his favor.

• Self-Defense / Defense of Another: Appellant Bundoc maintained that he and his companions only beat Guillermo Ribis with sticks because Ribis unsheathed the bolo he carried and attacked Rafael Bumanglag; they intervened to defend Bumanglag.
• Lack of Criminal Responsibility: Appellant pleaded not guilty and argued that his exculpatory account was reasonable, so he should not be held criminally liable for the killing.

• Sheathed Bolo: The prosecution argued, as recounted in the dissenting opinion, that the defendants’ claim that Ribis attacked with a bolo was contradicted by the fact that the bolo was still in its sheath when the body was examined.
• Nature of Wounds: The prosecution argued, as recounted in the dissenting opinion, that the presence of wounds made by sharp instruments contradicted the defendants’ claim that they used only bamboo sticks.

• Self-Defense / Defense of Another: Whether Gregorio Bundoc acted in self-defense or in defense of Rafael Bumanglag, thereby exempting him from criminal liability.
• Criminal Liability for Homicide: Whether Bundoc is guilty as co-principal by direct participation in the homicide of Guillermo Ribis.
• Mitigating Circumstances and Penalty: Whether the mitigating circumstances under articles 9(7) and 11 of the Penal Code may be considered to reduce the penalty.

• Self-Defense / Defense of Another: No. The claim of unlawful aggression by the deceased was not credible because his bolo was found sheathed and the wounds indicated the use of cutting and stabbing weapons by the assailants, so the requisites for exemption were absent.
• Criminal Liability for Homicide: Yes. The appellant and his companions assaulted Ribis with sticks and cutting and stabbing arms, inflicting serious and mortal wounds, making him guilty of homicide as co-principal by direct participation under article 404 of the Penal Code.
• Mitigating Circumstances and Penalty: Yes. The Court considered the mitigating circumstance of loss of reason and self-control under article 9(7) and the special circumstance under article 11, with no aggravating circumstance, and imposed the penalty immediately inferior to that prescribed by law in its minimum degree under article 81, rule 5.

• Self-Defense / Defense of Another: The majority found no prior illegal aggression. The deceased’s bolo was in its sheath and hanging from his waist when the body was examined. If Ribis had used the bolo, it would have been found unsheathed; it was not reasonable that he sheathed it before falling in a dying condition. The claim that he attacked with a bolo was therefore unreasonable, and the other requisites for full or partial exemption were absent.
• Criminal Liability for Homicide: The physician’s certificate, ratified under oath, showed that Guillermo Ribis was violently deprived of life in consequence of serious wounds and bruises, some mortal. The appellant and his two companions assaulted Ribis with sticks and cutting and stabbing arms, inflicting serious and mortal wounds. These facts established the crime of homicide defined and punished by article 404 of the Penal Code. Bundoc was guilty as co-principal by direct participation, together with his codefendants who were already serving sentence.
• Mitigating Circumstances and Penalty: The Court took into account mitigating circumstance No. 7 of article 9 because Bundoc acted with loss of reason and self-control upon seeing Ribis taking material possession of the palay seized and hidden the previous night, an unlawful act causing damage to laborers. The special circumstance under article 11 was also considered in favor of the accused because of the erroneous and general belief that it is legal to punish even to excess a thief who refuses to work and deprives neighbors of the fruits of their labor. With no aggravating circumstance, these two circumstances required, under article 81, rule 5, the imposition of the penalty immediately inferior to that prescribed by law in its minimum degree. The penalty was thus six years and one day of prisión mayor, with the accessories of article 61, indemnity of P1,000, and one-third costs.

• Homicide under Article 404 of the Penal Code — The violent deprivation of another’s life caused by serious wounds and bruises, some mortal, constitutes homicide under article 404. The Court applied this because the physician’s certificate, ratified under oath, showed Ribis died from such wounds inflicted by the appellant and his companions.
• Self-Defense / Defense of Another Requires Unlawful Aggression — An accused cannot be exempted from criminal liability on a claim of self-defense or defense of another without prior illegal aggression and the other requisites. The Court found no unlawful aggression because the deceased’s bolo remained sheathed and the wounds indicated the use of cutting and stabbing weapons by the assailants, rendering the exculpatory claim unreasonable.
• Mitigating Circumstance of Loss of Reason and Self-Control (Article 9[7], Penal Code) — The Court credited in favor of the accused the fact that he acted with loss of reason and self-control upon seeing the thief taking the palay he had stolen and hidden the previous night.
• Special Circumstance under Article 11, Penal Code — The Court considered in favor of the accused the erroneous and general belief that it is legal to punish even to excess a thief who refuses to work and deprives neighbors of the fruits of their labor.
• Article 81, Rule 5, Penal Code — When two mitigating circumstances are present and no aggravating circumstance attends the commission of the crime, the penalty immediately inferior to that prescribed by law is imposed in its minimum degree. The Court applied this rule to reduce Bundoc’s penalty.

• "It is therefore indisputable that, without any prior illegal aggression and the other requisites which would fully or partially exempt the accused from criminal responsibility, the appellant and his two companions assaulted Guillermo Ribis with sticks and cutting and stabbing arms, inflicting upon him serious and mortal wounds, and therefore, the said accused is guilty of the crime of homicide as co-principal by direct participation, fully convicted, together with his codefendants who are already serving their sentence." — This passage states the ratio decidendi on criminal liability and the rejection of the self-defense claim.
• "In the commission of the crime we should take into account the mitigating circumstance No. 7 of article 9 of the Penal Code, because the defendant acted with loss of reason and self-control on seeing that Guillermo Ribis was taking material possession of the palay seized and hidden by him on the previous night, thus committing one of the numerous unlawful acts perpetrated at the place, to the damage and prejudice of those who, by their labor endeavor to provide themselves with the necessary elements for their subsistence and that of their families." — This passage identifies the first mitigating circumstance credited in favor of the accused.
• "The special circumstance established by article 11 of the same code should be also considered in favor of the accused, in view of the erroneous and quite general belief that it is legal to punish, even to excess the thief who, in defiance of law and justice, while refusing to work, devotes himself to depriving his neighbors of the fruits of their arduous labors; these two circumstances are considered in the present case as especially admissible, without any aggravating circumstance, and they determine, according to article 81, rule 5, of the Penal Code, the imposition of the penalty immediately inferior to that prescribed by the law, and in its minimum degree" — This passage explains the second special circumstance and the legal basis for reducing the penalty.
• "By virtue of the foregoing considerations, we are of the opinion that, the judgment appealed from being reversed with respect to Gregorio Bundoc only, the latter should be, and is hereby, sentenced to the penalty of six years and one day of prisión mayor, to the accessories of article 61 of the code, to indemnify the heirs of the deceased jointly or severally with his codefendants, in the sum of P1,000, and to pay one-third the costs of both instances. So ordered." — This is the dispositive portion of the majority opinion.

• United States vs. Sosa, 4 Phil. Rep., 104 — Cited in the dissenting opinion for the importance of the effect produced by bamboo sticks in assessing self-defense.
• United States vs. De Castro, 2 Phil. Rep., 67; United States vs. Mack, 8 Phil. Rep., 701 — Cited in the dissenting opinion for the proposition that a piece of bamboo is ordinarily insufficient to put life in imminent peril.
• United States vs. Brello, 9 Phil. Rep., 424 — Cited in the dissenting opinion as a case where defense of habitation and person justified killing an aggressor.
• United States vs. Patala, 2 Phil. Rep., 752 — Cited in the dissenting opinion for self-defense where the accused wrested a knife from an assailant.
• Beard vs. United States, 158 U. S., 550 — Cited in the dissenting opinion for the rule that there is no difference between habitation and premises for self-defense.

• Article 404, Penal Code — Defines and punishes homicide. Applied because Ribis was violently deprived of life by serious wounds and bruises, some mortal.
• Article 9(7), Penal Code — Mitigating circumstance of loss of reason and self-control. Applied because Bundoc acted with loss of reason and self-control upon seeing Ribis taking the stolen palay.
• Article 11, Penal Code — Special circumstance. Applied in favor of the accused due to the erroneous and general belief that it is legal to punish even to excess a thief who refuses to work.
• Article 81, rule 5, Penal Code — When two mitigating circumstances and no aggravating circumstance are present, the penalty immediately inferior to that prescribed by law is imposed in its minimum degree. Applied to reduce the penalty.
• Article 61, Penal Code — Accessories. Imposed with the penalty.
• Article 8, Penal Code — Cited in the dissenting opinion as the basis for exemption for defense of person, relatives, or strangers.

Arellano, C.J., Mapa, and Johnson, JJ.

• Moreland, J. — Dissented, with Carson, J., concurring. He would reverse and acquit Bundoc. He found unlawful aggression established: Ribis, a notorious thief and desperado, was caught red-handed stealing palay and attacked Bumanglag with a bolo. The fact that the bolo was found sheathed was inconclusive because the body was left unwatched for a considerable time. The wounds could have been caused by hard bamboo sticks, and the sanitary inspector was not a qualified expert. The defendants acted in defense of Bumanglag, a relative or stranger, under article 8(5) and (6) of the Penal Code, and the means used were reasonably necessary under the circumstances. He cited numerous authorities on self-defense and defense of others.