People vs Francisco Cagoco, October 6, 1933

The accused was charged and convicted by the RTC Manila with the crime of asesinato or murder.

Facts: That on or about July, 1932, While Yu Yee and Yu Lon his father, stopped to talking on the
sidewalk at San Fernando St., a man passed back and forth behind Yu Lon once or twice, and when Yu
Yee was about to take leave his father, the man approached Yu Lon from behind and suddenly
without warning struck him with his fist on the back part of the head. His father fell backwards and his
head struck the asphalt pavement. Then the man immediately ran away. Yu Yee and 2 other chinese
men pursued the man but unfortunately lost of their sight. You Lon was taken to the hospital but died
about midnight.

A post mortem examination was made the next day, by dr. Villegas who found that the deceased had
sustained a lacerated wound and fracture of the skull. That he died from cerebral hemorrhage. But
the deceased found that he had tuberculosis, but not in an advantage stage, and a tumor in the left
kidney.

Yu Yee identified the man who struck his father which is around 25 or 30 years old, with a long hair.

3 or 4 days after, the man was arrested and later found that it was Francisco Cagoco.

Cagoco convicted by the RTC Manila and sentenced him to suffer reclusion perpetua and indemnify
the heirs of 1,000.00.

Issue: Whether or not Cagoco should only be liable with Art. 266 of the RPC, or slight physical injury
rather than murder?

Held:No. The appellant is liable for the killing of YU Lon, because his death was the direct
consequences of defendant’s felonious act striking him on the head.

Although paragraph 1 of Art. 4of the RPC provide that criminal liability shall be incurred by any
person committing a felony, the wrongful act done be different from that which he intended; but in
order that a person may by criminally liable for a felony different from that which he proposed to
commit, it is indispensable the two following requisites be present. To wit; (a) that a felony was
committed; and, (b) that the wrong done to the aggrieved person be the direct consequence of the
crime committed by the offender.

Where death result as the direct consequence of the use of illegal violence, the mere fact that the
deceased or weakened condition of the injured person contributed to his death, does not relieve the
illegal aggressor of criminal responsibility; that one is not relieved, under the law in these islands,
from criminal liability for the natural consequences of one’s illegal acts merely because one does not
intend to produce such consequences; but that in such cases, the lack of intention while is does not
exempt from criminal liability, is taken to consideration as an extenuating circumstance.

The petition is denied.