CASE: People v Bindoy DATE: August 28, 1931 PONENTE: Villamor, J.

NATURE OF THE CASE: Appeal from a judgment of the CFI of Occidental Misamis. Topic in Syllabus: Accident distinguished from imprudence or negligence

FACTS: HELD: Apellant is entitled to acquittal. 1) Lack of evidence of intent to injure Omamdam (no motive) - No evidence that Omamdam took part in the fight or that Bindoy was aware of his presence - Also no indication of any ill-feelings between Faustino and Bindoy - In fact, two witnesses (his wife and Gaudencio Cenas) were told by the victim that it was an accident 2) Corroborative statement from witness on how Omamdam was injured - According to Cenas, Omamdam came up to the combatants the moment that the bolo violently flew to Bindoys left side. He also said that earlier, the victim had passed behind the combatants, thus they did not see him. 3) Bindoy, in the struggle, did not attempt to wound his opponent - If he had done so and Omadam was wounded, as a result, he would have incurred criminal liability, though the wrongful act done be different from that which he intended Disturbance occurred in a tuba wineshop in the barrio market of Calunod, municipality of Baliangao, Provinceof Occidental Misamis, started by some tuba drinkers Faustino Pacas and his wife, Tibay, were drinking there, as well as one Donato Bindoy (accused), the uncle of Faustino Bindoy offered tuba to Tibay but she refused, as she had already had some. He threatened to injure her if she didnt and they had an exchange of words Faustino, the husband, stepped in and attempted to take away the bolo carried by Bindoy. Aforementioned commotion attracted the attention of Emigdio Omamdam (victim) who lived near the market. He left his house to see what was happening. Bindoy succeeded in disengaging himself from Faustino, wrenching the bolo from his nephews hand, towards the left behind the accused with such force that the point of the bolo reached Omamdams chest, the wound later killing him Accused Bindoy was defending his possession of his bolo, a perfectly lawful act, and alleges that he injured Omamdam without malice

CASE: US v Ecaltacion DATE: February 17, 1904 PONENTE: Torres, J. NATURE OF THE CASE: Appeal from a judgment of the CFI of Bulacan. Topic in Syllabus: Irresistible force/uncontrollable fear

FACTS: March 1903, Liberate Exaltacion and Buenaventura Tanchinco were arrested after the police acquired documents in the encampment of one Contreras, a so-called general of bandits. The documents were signed by the herein accused. They were charged with the crime of rebellion that they had bound themselves to take part in a rebellion against the government of the US by swearing allegiance to the Katipunan Society whose purpose was to overthrow the government by force of arms. Exaltacion and Tanchinco claim that they were captured by armed bandits and were compelled to sign the documents under threat of death. Documents contained an oath taken in the name of God, a covenant to carry out the superior orders of the Katipunan Society and to never disobey the society until their death in the defense of the mother country. 1) Tanchinco: captured on his way to work in the fields by 3 armed men who asked him if he was an agent or friend of President Testa. - Replied in the negative but was made to sign aforementioned document - Cited Lazaro Yusay as witness to his capture in Kaibiga, Novaliches - Day after his release, being unable to pay the P300 demanded of him, he reported to President Testa 2) Exalatacion: captured near Meycauayan by 5 armed men dressed as police officers and then brought to the forest where he was compelled to sign the aforementioned document - Allowed him to leave with promise to return - Testified that Antero Villano and Tomas Rivera saw him on the road in the hands of the armed men After reporting to President Testa, they subsequently went to Bonifacio Morales to report to him the fact that they had been captured They also reported this to the provincial governor, Don Pablo Tecson. Statement was made in the house of a parish priest, with several witnesses, including the president of the municipality of Meycauayan, who was holding office after former President Testa was kidnapped

HELD: Defendants acquitted. 1) Evidence for the prosecution not sufficient to prove the guilt 2) Facts relieve them from all criminal liability Established by the evidence that the defendants were kidnapped by brigands and that they signed the said documents under compulsion and while in captivity 3) Conduct of the defendants in presenting themselves to the authorities is corroborative of their innocence 4) Guilt of defendants was not established beyond reasonable doubt.

CASE: US v Phelps DATE: August 11, 1910 PONENTE: Trent, J. NATURE OF THE CASE: Appeal from a judgment of the CFI of Jolo. Topic in Syllabus: Instigation and entrapment

FACTS: James O. Phelps was charged for having violated the provisions of Act No. 1761, particularly for smoking opium. Prosecution testimony: - Witness: Homer Smith, employee of the Bureau of Internal Revenue - Smith heard the accuse say in an International Saloon that he on some occasions liked to smoke opium - He asked the accused about it hours later and accused verified that he smoked it. Smith then felt it his duty to watch over Phelps. - Told the accused that he wanted to smoke opium and was invited to smoke by Phelps that same night. However, accused was not able to prepare a room. Same thing happened the next night no room produced. - They made another agreement and finally were able to meet and go together to a house in a barrio of Tulay where a Chinaman prepared a pipe and opium for smoking. - Accused gave the Chinaman P2 while Smith gave him P1. - That the accused then smoked two pills of opium while the witness, after being prepared a pipe for smoking, took it and the pan with the opium to the justice of peace. He then swore out a warrant for the arrest of Phelps and the Chinaman (who was charged in Criminal Case No. 292). Defendants testimony: - That Smith, using the name Lockwood, came to his house in Jolo and asked if he knew any Chinaman who could assist him in obtaining opium. Accused said no. - Smith then asked accused if his Chinese servant (the same one charged) could look for someone who could furnish him with a pipe - The next night, Smith again went to his house, looking very nervous and told him he needed opium - Accused told Smith to go to the hospital but the latter feared that his employer would not give him his desired position if he found out that he was an opium smoker - Believing in good faith that Smith was really sick, accused told the Chinaman to find opium and they proceeded to the Chinamans house in Tulay. - The Chinaman prepared the pipe and after giving his servant P2, Phelps left. He was arrested about 40 minutes later. Chinaman corroborated accused defendants testimony. Chief of Police of Jolo testified that after their arrest, Phelps and the Chinaman had no opportunity to speak with each other. Doctor De Kraft, a US Army doctor, examined the accused between 1.5 to 2 hours after he left the Chinamans house. Doctor testified that Phelps did not appear to be an opium smoker strong and robust. He also answered when asked that I am sure that he did not use any opium on that day.

Prosecution does not contend that the accused sold or had in his possession any opium. Nor possession of any paraphernalia used in smoking the drug. He is charged only with smoking opium in that instance.

HELD: Defendant acquitted. 1) Smith encouraged and induced defendant to commit a crime in order to persecute him - He not only suggested the commission of the crime but also expressed his desire to commit the offense and to pay his share of the expense necessary. 2) Positive testimony of the defendant - Corroborated by the Chinaman and the army doctor