ACCIDENT

US vs. Tanedo

People vs. Agliday

Facts of the Case:

Facts of the Case:

The
Homicide.

The accused was found guilty

Parricide for the death of his son, Richard.

of

The accused quarreled with his wife

over her working as a laundrywoman and his
drinking habits. The son, Richard, interfered and
for that reason, the father got his shotgun and
shot his son. The accused claimed that he was
cleaning his gun at the time and he accidentally
squeezed the trigger and the gun fired. Because
of the freak accident, his son was hit while he
was about to go upstairs.
Issue:
Whether or not the accused accidentally
shot the deceased.
Decision:
The
decision.

Court

affirmed

the

assailed

No accident because from the

declarations of his wife and son, he purposely
shot his son. Accident presupposes doing a
lawful act with due care. There was no lawful act
because the testimonies point that he was not
holding his gun because he was cleaning it, but
because he actually intended to shoot his son.
There was no cleaning of the gun. During the
fight where the son tried to pacify him, he
actually went to the room to retrieve the gun.

accused

was

found

guilty

of

On January 26, 1909, Cecilio Tanedo, a

landowner, went with some workers to work on
the dam on his land, carrying with him his
shotgun & a few shells. Upon reaching the dam,
the accused went on his way to hunt for wild
chickens, meeting the victim, Feliciano Sanchez,
the latter's Mother & Uncle. The accused went
into the forest upon the recommendation of the
deceased to continue his search for the elusive
wild chickens. Upon seeing one, Tanedo shot
one, but simultaneously, he heard a human cry
out in pain. After seeing that Sanchez was
wounded, Tanedo ran back to his workers and
asked one, Bernardino Tagampa, to help him
hide the body, which they did by putting it amidst
the tall cogon grass, & later burying in an old
well. Only 1 shot was heard that morning & a
chicken was killed by a gunshot wound. Chicken
feathers were found at the scene of the crime.
There was no enmity between the accused and
the deceased. Prior to the trial, the accused
denied all knowledge of the crime, but later
confessed during the trial.
Issue:
Whether or not the accused guilty.
Decision:
The accused was acquitted. The idea
that Tanedo intended to kill Sanchez is negated
by the fact that the chicken and the man were
shot at the same time, there having only one
shot fired. There is no evidence of negligence on
the part of the accused, nor is it disputed that
the accused was engaged in a legal act, nor is
there evidence that the accused intended to kill
the deceased. The only thing suspicious is his
denial of the act and his concealment of the
body.