US vs Valdez

Facts:The wrong done is considered to be the direct, natural and logical consequence of the
felony committed.The victim, Venancio argantel , who was threatened by the
accused, !ali"to Valdez y #uiri, with a$nife, %um&ed into the water and because of
the strong current or because he did not $now how toswim, he san$ down and died of
drowning.'n the ne"t day one of the friends of the victim &osted himself near the
lighthouse to watch for
the body, in the ho&e that it might come to the surface and could thus be recovered. Though his
friendly vigil lasted three days nothing came of it. (oreover, Venancio has not returned to his
lodging in
(anila, where he lived as a bachelor in the house of an acquaintance) and his &ersonal belongings
have beendelivered to a re&resentative of his mother who lives in the *rovince of +loilo. is
friends and relatives,ta$e it for granted that he is dead.+ssue: -' , the accused is res&onsible for
the death of the victim. eld: The victim is presumed dead and that he came to his death by
drowning under the circumstances stated. The &roof is direct that he never rose to the
surface after %um&ing into the river, so far as theobservers could see) and this
circumstance, cou&led with the $nown fact that human life must
inevitably be e"tinguished by as&hy"iation under water, is conclusive of his death. The &ossibil
ity that he mighthave swum ashore, after rising in a s&ot hidden from the view of his
companions, we consider tooremote to be entertained for a
moment. /s to the criminal responsibility of the accused for the death thus occasioned the li$ewis
e can be nodoubt) for it is obvious that the deceased, in throwing himself in the river, acted
solely in obedience tothe instinct of self0&reservation and was in no sense legally res&onsible
for his own
death. / &erson who creates in another1s mind an immediate sense of danger, which causes the la
tter to dosomething resulting to the latter1s in%uries is liable for the resulting in%uries.The
accused must, therefore, be considered the res&onsible author of the death of the
victim, and
he was &ro&erly convicted of the offense of homicide. The trial %udge a&&reciated as an atten
uatingcircumstance the fact that the offender had no intention to commit so great a wrong as that
committed.2*ar. 3, art. 4 penal code.