Scribd
Upload
55 views1 page

PP v. Cagoco

In the case of The People of the Philippine Islands vs. Francisco Cagoco y Ramones, the court addressed the conviction of the defendant for murder following the fatal assault of Yu Lon. The ruling affirmed that the defendant's actions directly caused the victim's death, despite the defendant's lack of intent to inflict such severe harm. The court concluded that the conviction for murder was appropriate under the Revised Penal Code, as the unlawful act led to the fatal consequences.

Uploaded by

MarkJobelleMantilla
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
55 views1 page

PP v. Cagoco

In the case of The People of the Philippine Islands vs. Francisco Cagoco y Ramones, the court addressed the conviction of the defendant for murder following the fatal assault of Yu Lon. The ruling affirmed that the defendant's actions directly caused the victim's death, despite the defendant's lack of intent to inflict such severe harm. The court concluded that the conviction for murder was appropriate under the Revised Penal Code, as the unlawful act led to the fatal consequences.

Uploaded by

MarkJobelleMantilla
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 1

G.R. No.

L-38511 October 6, 1933

THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS, plaintiff-appellee, vs.

FRANCISCO CAGOCO Y RAMONES (alias FRANCISCO CAGURO, alias FRANCISCO ADMONES, alias
BUCOY, alias FRISCO GUY), defendant-appellant.

Facts: 8:30 on the night of July 24, 1932 Yu Lon and Yu Yee, father and son, stopped to talk on the
sidewalk at the corner of Mestizos and San Fernando Streets in the District of San Nicolas Yu Lon was
standing near the outer edge of the sidewalk, with his back to the street. While they were talking, a man
passed back and forth behind Yu Lon once or twice, and when Yu Yee was about to take leave of his
father, the man that had been passing back the forth behind Yu Lon approached him from behind and
suddenly and without warning struck him with his fist on the back part of the head. Yu Lon tottered and
fell backwards. His head struck the asphalt pavement; the lower part of his body fell on the sidewalk. His
assailants immediately ran away. Yu Yee pursued him then lost sight of him. Two other Chinese, Chin
Sam and Yee Fung, who were walking, saw the incident and joined him in the pursuit of Yu Lon's
assailant. The wounded man was taken to the Philippine General Hospital, were he died about midnight.
A post-mortem examination was made the next day by Dr. Anastacia Villegas, who found that the
deceased had sustained a lacerated wound and fracture of the skull in the occipital region, and that he
had died from cerebral hemorrhage; that he had tuberculosis, though not in an advanced stage, and a
tumor in the left kidney.

Issue: Whether or not the trial court erred in convicting the appellant of the crime of murder, under
article 248 of the Revised Penal Code, instead of convicting him of the crime of maltreatment, under
article 266 of the RPC?

Ruling: No, Paragraph No. 1 of article 4 of the Revised Penal Code provide that criminal liability shall be
incurred by any person committing a felony (delito) although the wrongful act done be different from
that which he intended; but in order that a person may be criminally liable for a felony different from
that which he proposed to commit, it is indispensable that 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. U.S. vs. Brobst, 14 Phil., 310; U.S. vs. Mallari, 29
Phil., 14 U.S. vs. Diana, 32 Phil., 344.)

there can be no reasonable doubt as to the cause of the death of Yu Lon. There is nothing to indicate
that it was due to some extraneous case. It was clearly the direct consequence of defendants felonious
act, and the fact that the defendant did not intend to cause so great an injury does not relieve him from
the consequence of his unlawful act, but is merely a mitigating circumstance (U.S. vs. Rodriguez, 23 Phil.,
22).

You might also like