US Vs Calixto Valdez
US Vs Calixto Valdez
US Vs Calixto Valdez
L-16486 March 22, 1921 It may be added that Venancio has not returned to his lodging in Manila and his
THE UNITED STATES, plaintiff-appelle, personal belongings have been delivered to a representative of his mother. His
vs. CALIXTO VALDEZ Y QUIRI, defendant-appellant. friends and relatives, it is needless to say, take it for granted that he is dead
STREET, J.: The proof is direct that he never rose to the surface after jumping into the river, so
SUMMARY far as the observers could see; and this circumstance, coupled with the known fact
Venancio, who was then on a boat, jumped into the water believing he was in great peril that human life must inevitably be extinguished by asphyxiation under water, is
after Calixto threatened to stab him, causing his death. The accused was then charged conclusive of his death. The possibility that he might have swum ashore, after rising
with homicide. in a spot hidden from the view of his companions, we consider too remote to be
ARTICLES/DOCTRINES USED entertained for a moment.
“If a man creates in another man's mind an immediate sense of danger which causes The accused was charged with homicide
such person to try to escape, and in so doing he injuries himself, the person who creates ISSUE
such a state of mind is responsible for the injuries which result” WON the accused is guilty of homicide.
FACTS: RULING
November 29, 1919 interisland steamer Vigan was anchored in the Pasig River a YES. As to the criminal responsibility of the accused for the death thus occasioned
short distance from the lighthouse and not far from where the river debouches into the likewise can be no doubt; for it is obvious that the deceased, in throwing himself
the Manila Bay. in the river, acted solely in obedience to the instinct of self-preservation and was in
A small boat was sent out to raise the anchor. no sense legally responsible for his own death.
o The crew of this boat consisted of the accused, Calixto Valdez y Quiri, and As to him it was but the exercise of a choice between two evils, and any reasonable
six others among who was the deceased, Venancio Gargantel. person under the same circumstances might have done the same. As was once said
o The accused was in charge of the men and stood at the stern of the boat, by a British court, "If a man creates in another man's mind an immediate sense of
acting as helmsman, while Venancio Gargantel was at the bow (forward danger which causes such person to try to escape, and in so doing he injuries
part of the boat) himself, the person who creates such a state of mind is responsible for the injuries
The work raising the anchor seems to have proceeded too slowly to satisfy the which result." (Reg. vs. Halliday, 61 L. T. Rep. [N.S.], 701
accused, and he accordingly began to abuse the men with offensive epithets. a pertinent decision from the Supreme Court of Spain, of July 13, 1882, is cited,
Venancio Gargantel remonstrated, saying that it would be better, and they would enunciated the following doctrine: "That even though the death of the injured
work better, if he would not insult them. person should not be considered as the exclusive and necessary effect of the very
The accused took this remonstrance as a display of insubordination; and rising in grave wound which almost completely severed his axillary artery, occasioning a
rage he moved towards Venancio, with a big knife in hand, threatening to stab him hemorrhage impossible to stanch under the circumstances in which that person was
Venancio, evidently believing himself in great and immediate peril, threw himself placed, nevertheless as the persistence of the aggression of the accused compelled
into the water and disappeared beneath its surface to be seen no more. his adversary, in order to escape the attack, to leap into the river, an act which the
o The boat in which this incident took place was at the time possibly 30 or 40 accused forcibly compelled the injured person to do after having inflicted, among
yards from shore, it was full midday, and there was nothing to obstruct the others, a mortal wound upon him and as the aggressor by said attack manifested a
view of persons upon the scene, the failure of Venancio Gargantel to rise to determined resolution to cause the death of the deceased, by depriving him of all
the surface conclusively shows that, owing to his possible inability to swim possible help and putting him in the very serious situation narrated in the decision
or the strength of the current, he was borne down into the water and was appealed from, the trial court, in qualifying the act prosecuted as consummated
drowned. homicide, did not commit any error of law, as the death of the injured person was
Two witnesses who were on the boat state that after Venancio leaped into the due to the act of the accused."
water, the accused told the remaining members of the crew to keep quiet or he The accused must, therefore, be considered the responsible author of the death of
would kill them Venancio Gargantel, and he was properly convicted of the offense of homicide.
o For this reason they made no movement looking to rescue The trial judge appreciated as an attenuating circumstance the fact that the offender
On the next day one of the friends of Venancio Gargantel posted himself near the had no intention to commit so great a wrong as that committed. (Par. 3, art. 9 Penal
lighthouse to watch for the body. His friendly vigil lasted three days nothing came of Code.)
it. Said sentenced is in accordance with law; and it being understood that the
accessories appropriate to the case are those specified in article 59 of the Penal
Code, the same is affirmed, with costs against the appellant. So ordered.