People v Cagoco GR No.

L-38511 10/6/1933 Justice Vickers Facts of the Case: On July 24, 1932, Yu Lon and Yu Yee, father and son, stopped total on the sidewalk. While they were talking, a man passed back and forth behind Yu Lon once or twice, and when Yu Yee was about to leave his father, the man that had been passing back and forth (Francisco Cagoco) approached Yu Lon from behind and suddenly and without warning struck Yu Lon with his fist on the back part of the head. Cagoco immediately ran away. Yu Yee and two other witnesses pursued him and then lost sight of him. The blow caused Yu Lon to fall on the ground. As a consequence of which he suffered a lacerated wound on the scalp and a fissured fracture on the left occipital region which were necessarily mortal and caused his immediate death. The next day, Yu Yee promptly reported the incident to the police. Cagoco was later apprehended and identified by Yu Yee as his fathers assailant. Issue: Whether or not the accused is guilty of murder Held: Yes. Ratio: As to the contention that the deceased would have fallen on his face if he had been struck on the back of the head, the expert testimony shows that in such a case, a person instinctively makes an effort to regain his balance. As a result, the deceased may have fallen downwards. Further, the sidewalks almost invariably slop towards the pavement so that when the deceased straightened up, he naturally tended to fall backwards. The accused struck the deceased on the back of the head because it would have been necessary for him to go between the deceased and Yu Yee who were then conversing. There is treachery when the offender commits a crime employing means, methods or forms in the execution thereof which tends directly to insure its execution without risk to himself arising from the defense which the offended part might make. In order that a person may be criminally liable for felony different from that which he proposed to commit, these two requisites should be present: 1. that a felony was committed 2. That the wrong done to the aggrieved person be the direct consequence of the crime committed by the offender. 3. In the case at bar, there is nothing to indicate that Yu Lons death was due to some extraneous case. It was clearly the direct consequence of the accuseds felonious ac t and the fact that he did not intend to cause so great an injury does not relieve him from the consequence of his unlawful act, but is merely a mitigating circumstance. Since the accused committed the felony with treachery, he is guilty of murder.