US vs.

Bumanglag

Facts:

 On the night of January 2, 1909, Rafael Bumanglag noticed that 40 bundles of palay which were
kept in his granary were missing.
 He searched for the missing palay the following morning and found them in an enclosed field
which was 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, and that night,
accompanied by Gregorio Bundoc, Antonio Ribao, and Saturnino Tumamao, he waited near the
said field for the person who might return to get the palay.
 Guillermo Ribis appeared and attempted to carry the palay away him, but at that instant
Bumanglag, Bundoc, and Ribao assaulted the presumed thief with sticks and cutting and
stabbing weapons; as a result of the struggle which ensued, Ribis fell down and died instantly.

Issue:

WON there is defense of property.

Held:

NO.

 Defense of property can be invoked as a justifying circumstance only when it is coupled with an
attack on the person of one entrusted with said property. (People v. Apolinar)
 The bolo worn by the deceased was in its sheath and hanging from his waist. 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 fight.
 Without unlawful aggression and the other requisites which would exempt the accused from
criminal responsibility, the appellant and his two companions assaulted Ribis with sticks and
cutting and stabbing arms, inflicting upon him serious and mortal wounds, and therefore, the
said accused is guilty of the crime of homicide as co-principal by direct participation, fully
convicted, together with his codefendants who are already serving their sentence.