G.R. No. 29481, October 31, 1928
THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS, plaintiff-appellee, vs. PAMBAYA BAYAMBAO, defendant-appellant.

FACTS

Pambaya Bayambao was convicted of murder by the Court of First Instance of Lanao for killing his brother-in-law, Mangutara. He appealed, claiming the killing was accidental. The accused testified that his wife alerted him that someone had thrown a stone at their house. He went downstairs with his revolver to investigate. In the dark, he saw a black figure rushing toward him with uplifted arms as if to strike. Fearing an attack by an outlaw (as he was a government tax collector and there had been recent violence in the area), he immediately fired, killing the person. He later discovered the victim was his brother-in-law. The accused immediately sought help and expressed remorse. The prosecution’s sole eyewitness was the victim’s widow, Morid, who gave a conflicting version, alleging the accused deliberately shot the deceased after a trivial conversation. Her testimony was uncorroborated, and the alleged ante-mortem statement of the deceased was deemed inadmissible and unreliable.

ISSUE

Whether the accused is criminally liable for the killing, or whether he is exempt due to an innocent mistake of fact (error in personae) and acting under an uncontrollable fear of an equal or greater injury.

RULING

The Supreme Court REVERSED the conviction and ACQUITTED the accused.
The Court found the accused’s version credible and natural, corroborated by his wife and his immediate conduct of reporting the incident and seeking medical aid. The prosecution’s evidence was weak, relying solely on the uncorroborated and incongruous testimony of the widow. The Court held that the accused acted under an impulse of an uncontrollable fear of an imminent attack, believing in good faith that the deceased was a malefactor about to assault him with a weapon. This constitutes an exempting circumstance under Article 8, No. 10 of the Penal Code (act committed by accident, without fault or intent, while performing a lawful act with due care). Furthermore, his error of fact was innocent and not due to negligence, which rebuts the presumption of malicious intent. The doctrine in *U.S. vs. Ah Chong* (15 Phil. 488) was applied, where a person acting under a reasonable mistake of fact in self-defense is exempt from liability. Therefore, the accused incurred no criminal liability.