CRIMINAL LIABILITY -The accused took this as a display of insubordination, thus, he moved

towards Gargantel, with a big knife in hand, threatening to stab him. At

the instant when the accused had attained to within a few feet of
G.R. No. L-16486 March 22, 1921 Gargantel, the latter, evidently believing himself in great and immediate
peril, threw himself into the water and disappeared beneath its surface
THE UNITED STATES, vs. CALIXTO VALDEZ Y QUIRI to be seen no more.

Wrongful act done be different from what was intended - Two witnesses who were on the boat state that, immediately after Venancio
leaped into the water, the accused told the remaining members of the crew to
DOCTRINE: “ That even though the death of the injured person should not be
keep quiet or he would kill them. For this reason they made no movement looking
considered as the exclusive and necessary effect of the very grave wound which
to rescue
almost completely severed his axillary artery , occasioning a hemorrhage
impossible to stanch under the circumstances in which that person was placed,
nevertheless as the persistence of the aggression of the accused compelled his
adversary, in order to escape the attack, to leap into the river, an act which -As alleged in the information, that said Gargantel had died by drowning, as a
the accused forcibly compelled the injured person to do after having consequence of having thrown himself into the water and upon seeing himself
inflicted, among others, a mortal wound upon him and as the threatened and attacked by the accused.
aggressor by said attack manifested a determined resolution to cause
the death of the deceased, by depriving him of all possible help and
putting him in the very serious situation narrated in the decision appealed - The Judgment rendered against the accused. Having been convicted as the
from, the trial court, in qualifying the act prosecuted as consummated homicide, author of the homicide.
did not commit any error of law, as the death of the injured person was due to
the act of the accused.”
- On appeal, the accused alleged that he was only guilty of the offense of
inflicting serious physical injuries, or at most of frustrated homicide.
FACTS:

- Sometime in 1919, while the interisland steamer Vigan was anchored in the
ISSUE:
Pasig River, a small boat was sent out to raise the anchor. The crew of this boat
consisted of the accused, Calixto Valdez, who is in charge of the crew, and six Whether or not the accused is liable for the death of Gargantel
others among who was the deceased, Venancio Gargantel.

HELD: YES
-During their work, the accused began to abuse the men with offensive words.
Gargantel complained, saying that it would be better if he would not insult
them.
RATIO: it is obvious that the deceased, in throwing himself in the river, acted
solely in obedience to the instinct of self-preservation and was in no sense legally
responsible for his own death. As to him it was but the exercise of a choice
between two evils, and any reasonable person under the same circumstances
might have done the same. As was once said by a British court, "If a man
creates in another man's mind an immediate sense of dander which causes such
person to try to escape, and in so doing he injuries himself, the person who
creates such a state of mind is responsible for the injuries which result."

The accused must, therefore, be considered the responsible author of

the death of Venancio Gargantel, and he was properly convicted of
the offense of homicide. The trial judge appreciated as an attenuating
circumstance the fact that the offender had no intention to commit so great a
wrong as that committed. (Par. 3, art. 9 Penal Code.)

PENALTY: twelve years and one day, reclusion temporal, to suffer the
corresponding accessories, to indemnify the family of the deceased in the sum
of P500, and to pay the costs. 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.
CRIMINAL LIABILITY
G.R. No. L-37507 June 7, 1977
THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs. WILLIAM PAGE
Wrongful act done be different from what was intended
Doctrine: The rule is that if a man creates in another person's mind an
immediate sense of danger, which causes such person to try to escape, and, in
so doing, the latter injures himself, the man who creates such a state of mind is
responsible for the resulting injuries
FACTS:
- On February 13, 1972 Crisanto Camposano, went to the house of William Page.
They were friends since boyhood. Page was an 18 yr old third year high school
student at the Arellano' University
-At past ten o'clock, Page and Camposano went to the rotonda or intersection
of Taft Avenue and F. B.Harrison Boulevard, where they boarded a
Manila-bound jeepney. Page was armed with a balisong knife.Camposano had a
revolver.
- According to Page’s Confession, he seated himself beside a male passenger
who was near the driver in the front seat. Camposano took a seat at the back of
the jeepney where two female passengers were seated
- Then, Page and Campasano directed the driver to go near the airport. There,
they held up the driver and the three passengers. They got the money and
pieces of jewelry of the passengers and the driver. From the rear view mirror of
the jeepney, Page saw Camposano dumping the two female
passengers. Then, the two directed the driver to proceed to the airport. They left
the jeepney afterwards.
- the woman who “jumped” (accdg to the driver testimony) from the
jeepney was brought to the hospital. However, she was already dead
when she reached the hospital.
- Page appealed from the decision of the CFI convicting him of robbery with
homicide, sentencing him to reclusion perpetua. He insisted that he had
nothing to do with the death of Veronica Villaverde Balacapo.
ISSUE: Whether or not Page, as a fellow conspirator of Camposano, could be held
liable for robbery with homicide or for robbery only.
HELD: YES
RATIO: Whether Veronica jumped from the jeepney, as testified by Scot, or
whether Camposano kicked and pushed her and her sister, Cesarean out of
the jeepney, as stated by Page in his confession, Camposano's culpability for
that flagitious deed cannot be disputed.
If Veronica jumped out of the jeepney, it must have been because she
was in mortal dread that Camposano would shoot her. As fear gripped
Veronica, she, in desperation, thought of scampering out of the moving
jeepney. Her head struck the pavement. It was broken. A hemorrhage ensued.
She died before medical assistance could be extended to her.
There is not a scintilla of doubt that a conspiracy to commit robbery existed
between Page and Camposano. The fact that the two armed themselves
with deadly weapons, a knife and a revolver, signified that they were
determined to kill their victims in order to consummate their nefarious
objective.
The conspiracy may be inferred from the acts of Page and Camposano.
The behavior of Page and Camposano inside the jeepney disclosed a
synchronization of their actions, evincing a prior concert and plan to commit
robbery with violence against and intimidation of persons. Page should
answer for all the consequences of the conspiracy, including the
homicide which was intertwined with the robbery committed by his
conspirator. The homicide was committed on the occasion or by
reason of the robbery.

Of course, he did not kill the victim. But, under the rules of conspiracy,
he is deemed to be a co-principal in the robbery with homicide.

The rule is that where the conspirarcy to commit robbery was conclusively
shown by the concurrent and coordinate acts of the accused, and homicide
was committed as consequence, or on the occasion, of the robbery, all of
the accused are guilty of robo con homicidio whether or not they
actually participated in the killing