13. People v Cagoco G.R. No. L-38511 October 6, 1933 the costs. Hence this appeal.

CASE: Appeal from a judgment of CFI Manila WON Cagoco is guilty of only slight physical injuries.
Vickers J. Held: No. He is guilty of murder.
A41 is applicable.
FACTS: (a) That a felony was committed; and
About 830pm, July 24, 1932, Father Yu Lon and son Yu Yee were talking on the (b) that the wrong done to the aggrieved person be the direct consequence of
sidewalk. Yu Lon was standing with his back to the street. While they were the crime committed by the offender.
talking, a man passed back and forth behind Yu Lon once or twice. 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
When Yu Yee was about to take leave of his father, the man that had been direct consequence of defendants felonious act, and the fact that the defendant
passing back the forth behind Yu Lon approached him from behind and did not intend to cause so great an injury does not relieve him from the
suddenly and without warning struck Yu Lon with his fist on the back part of the consequence of his unlawful act, but is merely a mitigating circumstance.
head. Yu Lon tottered and fell backwards. His head struck the asphalt pavement.
If the defendant had not committed the assault in a treacherous manner. he
His assailant immediately ran away. Yu Yee pursued him.. Two other Chinese, would nevertheless have been guilty of homicide, although he did not intend to
Chin Sam and Yee Fung, who saw the incident, joined him in the pursuit, kill the deceased; and since the defendant did commit the crime with treachery,
however they lost sight of him. he is guilty of murder, because of the presence of the qualifying circumstance of
treachery.
Yu Lon was taken to the Philippine General Hospital, were he died about
midnight. Note: There is no moral or legal incompatibility between treachery and the
mitigating circumstance No. 3 of A9(now A13) of the Penal Code, because the
A post-mortem examination revealed that the deceased had sustained a former depends upon the manner of execution of the crime and the latter upon
lacerated wound and fracture of the skull in the occipital region, and that he had the tendency of the will towards a definite purpose, and therefore there is no
died from cerebral hemorrhage; that he had tuberculosis, though not in an obstacle, in case treacherous means, modes or forms are employed, to the
advanced stage, and a tumor in the left kidney. appreciation of the first of said circumstances and simultaneously of the second
if the injury produced exceeds the limits intended by the accused.
August 4, 1932: Detectives Manrique and Bustamante arrested Francisco Cagoco.
DECISION: 1 MC (no intention) no AC, sentence reduced to 17y4m1d of RT.
Yu Yee was called to the police station and asked to identify his father's Others affirmed.
assailant from the police lineup(Cagoco was place near the middle of the line of
some 11 persons). Yu Yee without hesitation picked Cagoco. Cagoco was likewise
identified at the trial by Chin Sam and Yee Fung.

The accused was charged in the CFI Manila with the crime of asesinato. CFI
found Cagoco guilty as charged. Sentenced: RP with the accessory penalties.
Indemnity: P1k w/out subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency, and to pay