G.R. No. L-5318
THE UNITED STATES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. RAFAEL BUMANGLAG, ET AL., defendants. – GREGORIO BUNDOC, appellant.
December 23, 1909

FACTS:
On January 2, 1909, Rafael Bumanglag discovered 4 baares or 40 bundles of palay missing from his granary. The following morning, he found the palay hidden in a sugar cane field about 100 meters away. That night, Bumanglag, accompanied by Gregorio Bundoc (the appellant), Antonio Ribao, and Saturnino Tumamao, waited near the hidden palay to apprehend the thief. Guillermo Ribis appeared, approached the palay, and attempted to carry it away. At that moment, Bumanglag, Bundoc, and Ribao immediately assaulted Ribis with sticks and cutting/stabbing weapons. Ribis fell and died instantly from the injuries. The attackers believed Ribis was responsible for several thefts in the area.

A complaint for homicide was filed against Bumanglag, Bundoc, and Ribao. The trial court convicted all three, sentencing them to fourteen years, eight months, and one day of reclusión temporal, P1,000 indemnity, and costs. Only Gregorio Bundoc appealed. The medical examination revealed serious, mortal wounds inflicted by cutting and stabbing weapons. The defense claimed Ribis attacked first with a bolo, but testimony from the health officer and municipal president stated Ribis’ bolo was found sheathed and hanging from his waist, indicating no prior illegal aggression on his part.

ISSUE:
1. Whether the appellant, Gregorio Bundoc, is criminally liable for the homicide of Guillermo Ribis, and if so,
2. What is the appropriate penalty, considering the circumstances of the case, including the appellant’s claim of self-defense and his motive.

RULING:
The Supreme Court AFFIRMED Gregorio Bundoc’s guilt for the crime of homicide but MODIFIED the penalty.

1. The Court found that Ribis was violently deprived of his life by serious, mortal wounds inflicted by Bundoc and his co-defendants. The Court rejected Bundoc’s claim of self-defense, finding that there was no prior illegal aggression from Ribis, as his bolo was found sheathed. Therefore, Bundoc was guilty of homicide as a co-principal by direct participation.

2. In the commission of the crime, the Court recognized two mitigating circumstances:
Article 9, No. 7 of the Penal Code: Bundoc acted with loss of reason and self-control upon seeing Ribis taking material possession of the stolen palay.
Article 11 of the Penal Code: The existence of an erroneous and generally held belief that it is legal to punish a thief, even excessively.
As there were no aggravating circumstances, these two mitigating circumstances, according to Article 81, Rule 5 of the Penal Code, warranted the imposition of the penalty immediately inferior to that prescribed by law, and in its minimum degree.

Consequently, the judgment of the trial court was reversed with respect to Gregorio Bundoc only. He was sentenced to six years and one day of prisión mayor, with the accessories of Article 61 of the Penal Code, to indemnify the heirs of the deceased jointly or severally with his co-defendants in the sum of P1,000, and to pay one-third of the costs of both instances.