US vs.

Tañedo
No. 5418. February 12, 1910
Moreland, J:
Facts:
The defendant was found guilty of homicide by the CFI of the Province of Tarlac.
On January 26, 1909, the defendant, with Bernardino Tagampa, Casimiro Pascual,
Valerino Paulillo, and Juan Arellano, went to work on a Malecon or dam on his land.
The defendant took with him his shotgun with the intention to hunt wild chickens.
He went a short distance away across a stream to see how the dam affected the flow of
water from the rice field on the other side of the stream. On the other side of the stream,
he met the deceased.
The accused asked the uncle of the deceased where he could find a good place to hunt
wild chickens. Although the question was directed to the uncle, the deceased answered
the question ajd pointed out in a general way a portion of the forest near the edge of
which stood the shack.
There is some contradiction between the testimony of the accused and the Government
witnesses:
 The uncle of the deceased testified that the boy and the accused invited each
other mutually to hunt wild chickens and that accused accepted the invitation
 The accused testified that he did not invite the deceased to go hunting with him
neither did the deceased go with him.
The accused proceeded to hunt. Thinking that if he could kill some wild chickens, they
would have something to eat.
After he shot a chicken, the accused heard a human cry. He picked up the chicken and
went where he heard the noise, and saw that he had wounded a man.
The accused went back toward the Malecon or dam, whre his companions were
working and called Bernardino Tagampa to tell the incident, and they went to see the
body.
Only one shot was heard that morning and a chicken was killed by a gunshot wound.
On that evening, the two disposed the body. They took it form the cogon grass and
carried it about seventeen or eighteen hundred meters from the place where it had
originally fallen, and buried it in an old well.
The defendant prior to the trial denied all knowledge of the death of the deceased or
whereabouts of the body, however, he confessed his participation in the death of the
deceased on the trial.
There appears to have been no motive for the commission of the crime. The only
possible reason that the accused could have killed the deceased would be found in the
fact of a sudden quarrel between them during the hunt. That idea is wholly negated by
the fact that the chicken and the man were shot at the same time.
ISSUE:
Whether or not the accused be acquitted of the crime by reason of accident?
RULING:
In this case, there is absolutely no evidence of negligence upon the part of the accused.
Neither is there an evidence of the intention of the accused to cause the death of the
deceased. The only thing in the case that is suspicious is the concealment and denial.
The Court ruled that the evidence is insufficient to support the judgement of conviction
The judgement of conviction, was reversed, and the defendant was acquitted.