US vs Tanedo deceased would be found in the fact of a sudden quarrel
between them during the hunt. That idea is wholly negative
G.R. NO 5418 by the fact that the chicken and the man were shot at the February 12, 1910 same time, there having been only one shot fired. Hence, the decision was appealed
PETITIONER: U.S Issue:
RESPONDENT: CECILIO TAÑEDO Whether or not the court is correct in ruling that there is criminal liability Facts: Held: That on or about the 26th day of January of this year, the NO, If life is taken by misfortune or accident while in the accused, with the intention of killing Feliciano Sanchez, performance of a lawful act executed with due care and invited him to hunt wild chickens, and, upon reaching the without intention of doing harm, there is no criminal liability. forest, with premeditation shot him in the breast with a shotgun which destroyed the heart and killed him. After In the case where there is no evidence of negligence upon seeing that Sanchez was wounded, Tanedo ran back to the part of the accused. Neither is there any question that his workers and asked one,"Bernardino Tagampa, to help he was engaged in the commission of a lawful act when him hide the body, which they did by putting it amidst the the accident occurred. Neither is there any evidence of the tallcogon grass, and later burying in an old well. Only one intention of the accused to cause the death of the shot was heard that morning and a chicken was killed by deceased. The only thing in the case at all suspicious upon a gunshot wound. Chicken feathers were found at the the part of the defendant are his concealment and denial. scene of the crime prior to the trial, the accused denied all Where accidental killing is relied upon as a defense, the knowledge of the crime, but later confessed during the accused is not required to prove such a defense by a trial. The CFI of Tarlac found the accused guilty of preponderance of the evidence, because there is a denial homicide, having invited the deceased into the forest and of intentional killing. The burden is upon the State to show intentionally shooting him in the chest So far as can be that it was intentional. ascertained, there was no enmity and no unpleasant relations between them. There appears to have been no Evidence of misadventure gives rise to an important issue motive whatever for the commission of the crime. The only in a prosecution for homicide, which must be submitted to possible reason that the accused could have for killing the the jury, and since a plea of misadventure is a denial of criminal intent which constitutes an essential element in criminal homicide, to warrant a conviction it must be negative by the prosecution beyond a reasonable doubt. Judgment is reversed.
Commonwealth of Pennsylvania Ex Rel. Albert Raymond v. Alfred Rundle, Warden, Eastern State Correctional Institution, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, 339 F.2d 598, 3rd Cir. (1964)