PP Vs Cabungcal
PP Vs Cabungcal
PP Vs Cabungcal
28451, 1928-08-01
Facts:
On March 21, 1926 the appellant invited several persons to a picnic in a fishery on
his property in Infanta, Province of Tayabas.
They spent the day at the fishery, and in the afternoon returned in two boats, one
steered by the appellant and the other by an old woman named Anastasia Peñaojas.
Nine persons were in the boat steered by the appellant, among them the appellant's
wife and son and a nursing child.
Juan Loquenario was another passenger in the appellant’s boat. Upon reaching a
place of great depth, the deceased rocked the boat, and it started to take water. The
appellant asked the deceased not to do it but the deceased paid no attention and
continued rocking the boat, so the appellant struck him on the forehead with an
oar.
The deceased fell into the water and was submerged, but after a little while appeared
on the surface, grasping the side of the boat. Juan said that he was going to capsize
it and started to move it with this end in view. The women began to cry, whereupon
the appellant struck him on the neck with the same oar, which submerged the
deceased again.
With the movement that the appellant made in giving him the second blow, the boat
upset and the appellant proceeded to save his passengers. Anastasia Penaojas, who
steered the other boat, and who at that time was about 200 or 300 meters away,
having heard the cries of the wrecked persons, quickened its speed, repaired to and
arrived in time to pick up the passengers who are clinging to the side of the capsized
boat. The appellant, after having thus saved his passengers, proceeded to search for
the deceased but was unable to find him and his body was recovered later.
Issues:
WON the appellant is guilty of the crime of homicide
Ruling:
In view of all the circumstances of the case, in doing what the appellant did was in
lawful defense of the lives of the passengers of the boat, two of whom were his wife
and child. The recourse of taking the boat to the shore was not adequate in those
circumstances, because that would require sometime, whereas the deceased might
in an instant cause the boat to capsize without giving time to arrive at the shore.
The appellant having acted in defense of his wife and child and the other passengers
in the boat and the means employed having been reasonably necessary in this
defense, while it was at the cost of the life of the deceased, he is completely exempt
from criminal liability