Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 102 views

    10 US V Bumanpglag

    Uploaded by

    ihnasan
    1) Rafael Bumanglag discovered his stolen palay in a nearby field and set a trap to catch the thief. When Guillermo Ribis attempted to steal the palay again, Bumanglag and others assaulted and killed him with sticks and blades. 2) Gregorio Bundoc appealed the conviction, claiming self-defense. However, the court found Ribis' wounds indicated the use of blades, not just sticks as claimed. Ribis' bolo was still in its sheath, so he did not attack first. 3) While defending property is a mitigating circumstance, it does not excuse the crime. However, the defendants' loss of reason and belief that thieves

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    10 US V Bumanpglag

    Uploaded by

    ihnasan
    102 views2 pages
    1) Rafael Bumanglag discovered his stolen palay in a nearby field and set a trap to catch the thief. When Guillermo Ribis attempted to steal the palay again, Bumanglag and others assaulted and killed him with sticks and blades. 2) Gregorio Bundoc appealed the conviction, claiming self-defense. However, the court found Ribis' wounds indicated the use of blades, not just sticks as claimed. Ribis' bolo was still in its sheath, so he did not attack first. 3) While defending property is a mitigating circumstance, it does not excuse the crime. However, the defendants' loss of reason and belief that thieves

    Original Description:

    crim law

    Original Title

    10 US v Bumanpglag

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    1) Rafael Bumanglag discovered his stolen palay in a nearby field and set a trap to catch the thief. When Guillermo Ribis attempted to steal the palay again, Bumanglag and others assaulted and killed him with sticks and blades. 2) Gregorio Bundoc appealed the conviction, claiming self-defense. However, the court found Ribis' wounds indicated the use of blades, not just sticks as claimed. Ribis' bolo was still in its sheath, so he did not attack first. 3) While defending property is a mitigating circumstance, it does not excuse the crime. However, the defendants' loss of reason and belief that thieves

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf or txt
    102 views2 pages

    10 US V Bumanpglag

    Uploaded by

    ihnasan
    1) Rafael Bumanglag discovered his stolen palay in a nearby field and set a trap to catch the thief. When Guillermo Ribis attempted to steal the palay again, Bumanglag and others assaulted and killed him with sticks and blades. 2) Gregorio Bundoc appealed the conviction, claiming self-defense. However, the court found Ribis' wounds indicated the use of blades, not just sticks as claimed. Ribis' bolo was still in its sheath, so he did not attack first. 3) While defending property is a mitigating circumstance, it does not excuse the crime. However, the defendants' loss of reason and belief that thieves

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf or txt
    You are on page 1of 2

    US v Bumanglag et al.

    No. 5318 | December 23, 1909 | J. Torres


    FACTS:

    1. Night of Jan 2, 1909 - Rafael Bumanglag, an inhabitant of pueblo of San Nicolas, Ilocos Norte,
    missed 4 baares or 40 bundles of palay which were kept in his granary in Payas, barrio No. 16
    of the said pueblo.

    2. He proceed to search for them on the following morning and found them in an inclosed eld
    planted with sugar cane, at a distance of about 100 meters from his granary. For the purpose of
    ascertaining who had done it, he left the palay there. That night, accompanied by Gregorio
    Bundoc, Antonio Ribao, and Saturnino Tumamao, he waited near the said eld for the person
    who might return to get the palay.

    3. A man, who turned out to be Guillermo Ribis, appeared and approached the palay and
    attempted to carry it away with him, but at that instant, Bumanglag, Bundoc and Ribao
    assaulted the presumed thief with sticks and cutting and stabbing weapons.

    4. Ribis fell down and died instantly. Bumanglag et al presumed Ribis was the author of several
    robberies and thefts that had occurred in the place.

    5. Provincial scal led a complaint charging Bumanglag, Bundoc and Ribao with the crime of
    homicide. The trial judge sentenced the 3 caused to the penalty of 14 yrs 8 months 1 day of
    reclusion temporal, with accessories, and payment of P1,000 indemnity to the heirs of the
    deceased.

    6. Only Gregorio Bundoc appealed from the said sentence. He said he assaulted and killed the
    deceased, with the help of his co-defendants, in order to defend himself from an attack made
    by deceased with a bolo.


    ISSUE / HELD / RATIO

    1. WON Bundoc should be acquitted based on plea of self denes
    > NO. Unless the accused was rst unlawfully attacked, it is not proper to admit the plea
    of self defense and exempt him from criminal responsibility. It is necessary, in order
    that such denes shall be effective, that the same shall be proven as well as the crime
    charged.
    > In this case, defendants declared that they only used sticks against Ribis but
    examination of health ofcer Felipe Barba of the latters body showed that serious
    wounds had been inicted with cutting and stabbing weapons.
    > Also, the bolo worn by the deceased was still in its sheath and hanging from his waist
    when he fell and died. Therefore, it cannot be concluded that the deceased even
    intended to assault his murderers with his bolo either before he was attacked by them
    or during the ght.
    > Bundoc is guilty of the crime of homicide as co-principal by direct participation.

    2. WON defense of property (palay) should extinguish the crime committed by respondents
    > NO. It is only a mitigating circumstance which will lower the penalty.
    > Mitigating circumstance No. 7 of Art 9 of Penal Code should be taken into account
    because the defendant acted with loss of reason and self-control on seeing that Ribis
    was taking material possession of the palsy seized and hidden by him the previous
    night thus prejudicing the respondents who laboured to provide themselves and their
    families with subsistence.
    US v Bumanglag et al.
    No. 5318 | December 23, 1909 | J. Torres
    > Special circumstance of Art 11 of Penal Code should also be considered in favour of
    the accused, in view of the erroneous and quite general belief that it is legal to punish a
    thief who deprived them the fruits of their arduous labours.
    > These 2 circumstances (Arts 9 & 11) are considered especially admissible in the
    present case, without any aggravating circumstance, and the determine (according to
    Art 81, Rule 5 of Penal Code), the imposition of the penalty immediately inferior to that
    prescribed by law, and in its minimum degree.

    *Dispositive:
    > Gregorio Bundoc (only one who appealed) is sentenced to the penalty of 6 yrs and 1
    day of prision mayor, including accessories, to indemnify the heirs of the deceased in
    the sum of P1,000 jointly or severally with his co-defendants and to pay 1/3 of the costs
    of both instances

    You might also like