US vs Tanedo Facts:
That on or about the 26th day of January of this year, the accused, with the intention of killing Felician Feliciano o Sanche Sanchez, z, invited invited him to hunt hunt wild chickens, chickens, and, and, upon upon reaching reaching the forest, forest, with premedi premeditatio tation n shot shot him in the breast with a shotgun shotgun which destroyed destroyed the heart heart and killed him !fter seeing that Sanchez was wounded, Tanedo ran back to his workers and asked one, "ernardino Tagampa, to help him hide the body, which they did by putting it amidst the tall cogon grass, and later burying in an old well #nly one shot was heard that morning and a chicken was killed by a gunshot wound $hicken feath feathers ers were were found found at the scene scene of the crime crime %rior %rior to the trial trial,, the the accus accused ed denie denied d all knowledg knowledge e of the crime, but later confesse confessed d during during the trial The $F& of Tarlac found the accus accused ed guilt guilty y of homic homicid ide, e, havin having g invite invited d the dece decease ased d into into the fores forestt and and inten intentio tiona nally lly shooting him in the chest So far as can be ascertained, there was no enmity and no unpleasant relations between them There appears to have been no motive whatever for the commission of the crime The only possible reason that the accused could have for killing the deceased would be found in the fact of a sudden 'uarrel between them during the hunt That idea is wholly negative by the fact that the chicken and the man were shot at the same time, there having been only one shot fired (ence, the decision was appealed Issue:
)*+ the court is correct in ruling that there is criminal liability
NO
Held:
&f life is taken by misfortune or accident while in the performance of a lawful act eecuted with due care and without intention of doing harm, there is no criminal liability &n this case there is abso absolut lutely ely no evide evidenc nce e of negli neglige gence nce upon upon the part part of the the accuse accused d +eith +either er is there there any any 'uestion that he was engaged in the commission of a lawful act when the accident occurred +eith +either er is there there any any evide evidence nce of the intenti intention on of the accused accused to cause cause the the deat death h of the deceased The only thing in the case at all suspicious upon the part of the defendant are his concealment and denial )here accidental killing is relied upon as a defense, the accused is not re'uired to prove such a defense by a preponderance of the evidence, because there is a denial of intentional killing, and the burden is upon the State to show that it was intentional -vidence of misadventure gives rise to an important issue in a prosecution for homicide, which must be submitted to the .ury !nd 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 Thus the .udgment is reversed
