G.R No.

L-29481
People of the Philippines vs. Pambaya Bayambao
October 31, 1928

ROMUALDEZ, J.

FACTS:
Pambaya Bayambao was charged with the crime of murder, was found guilty sentenced to
twenty years Cadena Temporal. He doesn’t deny having caused the deceased’s death. He alleges,
however, that he did it by mistake, believing that the deceased was a malefactor who attacked
him in the dark.

He said that while his wife was cooking she called out and said that someone has thrown a stone
at their house. So he took his revolver and went down. Having gone under the house and around
but did not see anyone, he was about to go upstairs when he heard a noise and saw a black figure
that rushed at him with his hands lifted up as if to strike at him, Pambaya became frightened and
fired at it.

He did not have time to shout, and fearing being attack with a kampilan or dagger, he shot him.
He thought his brother-in-law was an outlaw because his wife screamed that there were evildoers
below, and in ther place there are many outlaws and they hate Pambaya because he helps the
government collect taxes.

The wife of the victim, Morid, gave another version of the occurrence. She testified that the
accused asked the deceased if the hens there belonged to him, and the latter asked the appellant
to focus his light there in order to gather all the hens together; that at this point the appellant shot
the deceased. Morid peered out of the door and saw what had transpired. She also heard the
deceased tell Pambaya that he was wounded. She reproached Pambaya, telling him that he did
wrong, and asked why he had shot her husband, the appellat then turned upon her telling her to
shut up or he would shoot her also.

ISSUE:
Whether or not the defendant is guilty of murder.

HELD:
No, the accused's narration seems natural. It is corroborated not just by his wife's testimony, but
also of Lt. Cramer’s and Sgt. Tumindog’s, to the effect that immediately after the occurrence the
accused went to the commanding officer of the place in order to give an account of the incident,
and to ask for prompt medical help for his unexpected victim. It cannot but produce in the mind a
conviction that what happened to the unfortunate Mangutara was an accident, without fault or
guilt on the part of the herein appellant.
The appellant, on that occasion, acted from the impulse of an uncontrollable fear of an ill that is
at least equal in gravity, believing that the deceased was a malefactor who attacked him with a
dagger in hand, and for this reason, he is exempt from criminal liability.

Furthermore, his ignorance or error of fact was not due to negligence or bad faith, and this rebuts
the presumption of malicious intent accompanying the act of killing. The judgment appealed
from is reversed and the appellant acquitted.