The People of the Philippine Islands vs.

Fernando de Fernando
Syllabus
ARTICLE 3. Definition. — Acts and omissions punishable by law are felonies (delitos).
Felonies are committed not only by means of deceit (dolo) but also by means of fault (culpa).
There is deceit when the act is performed with deliberate intent; and there is fault when the
wrongful act results from imprudence, negligence, lack of foresight, or lack of skill.

Facts
The trial of the following facts were proven beyond reasonable doubt:
Before the day of the crime, several Moro prisoners had escaped from the Penal Colony of San
Ramon, Zamboanga. At that time, the residents of Munichan, Zamboanga were alarmed by the
presence of three suspicious looking persons who were prowling around the area. The accused,
Fernando de Fernando, who was working as a municipal policeman, was passing by the house of
Remigio Delgado. Delgado’s daughter, Paciencia Delgado, called for de Fernando saying that her
father wishes to see him. Remigio Delgado told him about the three suspicious looking persons
prowling around his house. The accused, remained in the house. While talking with Paciencia
Delgado around 7 o’clock at night, there appeared in the dark, at about 4 meters from the stairs, a
person dressed in dark clothes, calling "Nong Miong.” The accused and Paciencia Delgado didn’t
recognize the person who was calling out. The accused asked what the person wanted, but instead
of answering, he kept advancing while holding a bolo. Upon seeing this, de Fernando took out his
revolver and fired a shot in the air. The person continued to ascend the staircase so the accused
fired at him. The unknown person disappeared and ran to the house of the neighbor, Leon Torres.
He placed the bolos he was carrying on the table, he fell on the floor and died. Remigio Delgado,
who was at the kitchen when the events took place, recognized the voice, and asked de Fernando
why he fired at Buenaventura Paulino. De Fernando proceeded to the house of the teniente of the
barrio where he telephoned the chief of police reporting about what happened. When Paulino’s
body was examined it was found that a bullet had penetrated the base of the neck at the right,
imbedding itself in the left side under the skin.

The accused thought that the unknown man was one of the Moro prisoners that escaped, given that
he was dressed in clothes similar in color to the prisoner’s uniform, he was carrying a bolo, he
wasn’t recognized by Paciencia Delgado, and that he didn’t answer when asked of his identity.
The accused tried to perform his duty and fired at the unknown person, who happened to be
Remigio Delgado’s nephew. De Fernando also wasn’t able to take account the full situation and
had mistaken a bundle of bolos tied together as one bolo.

From the judgment of the Court of First Instance of Zamboanga, Fernando de Fernando was found
guilty of the crime of murder and sentenced to suffer the penalty of twenty years cadena temporal,
to indemnify the heirs of the deceased Buenventura Paulino in the sum of P1,000 and to pay the
costs, by virtue of a complaint filed by the fiscal charging with the said crime.
De Fernando appealed because he found errors in the trial court’s judgment.
Issues
1. Whether or not de Fernando committed murder.
2. Whether or not the accused was exempt from criminal liability and that he should have
been acquitted

Ruling
1. No. In shooting Paulino, de Fernando felt that he was performing his duty by defending
the owners of the house against an unexpected attack, and such act cannot constitute the
crime of murder, but only that of simple homicide.
2. No. de Fernando wasn’t exempt from criminal liability. He cannot be held guilty (of
murder), as principal with malicious intent, because he thought at the time that he was
justified in acting as he did, and he is guilty only because he failed to exercise the ordinary
diligence which, under the circumstances, he should have by investigating whether or not
the unknown man was really what he thought him to be. In firing the shot, without first
exercising reasonable diligence, he acted with reckless negligence.

In view of the foregoing and reversing the appealed judgment, the accused is held guilty of the
crime of homicide through reckless negligence, and he is sentenced to suffer one year prision
correcional, to pay the amount of P500 to the heirs of the deceased as an indemnity, with subsidiary
imprisonment in case of insolvency, the costs and with credit of one-half of the preventive
imprisonment already suffered.