US vs. Catangay

THE UNITED STATES, plaintiff-appellee,
vs.
JOAQUIN CATANGAY, defendant-appellant.

G.R. No. L-9206
November 25, 1914

FACTS:

Mauricio Ramos (the deceased), Santiago Abandia, and Joaquin Catangay (defendant) went to hunt deer on the night of the crime. While passing along the middle of a field of talahib, with Ramos in front, behind him, Catangay, and lastly Abandia, the first two men saw a deer. Ramos, who saw the deer, was then squatting down, almost kneeling on the ground and aiming at the animal. Catangay tried to approach Ramos in order to aim and shoot, and while doing so, he was holding the shotgun in both hands with the barrel pointing upwards, though in the direction of the deer, and with the safety catch closed. At the moment he tried to open the safety catch of the gun, Catangay stumbled against an embankment or pilapil that lay between him and Ramos. He fell on one knee, an accident which caused the shotgun, which he had already loaded, cocked, and aimed at the deer, to be discharged. The bullet hit Ramos in the head, causing his death.

Catangay was charged with the crime of homicide through reckless negligence, and was found guilty thereof. The trial court found that there was reckless negligence on his part, for he should have taken the precaution not to have carried his shotgun cocked and aimed, as he did on the occasion in question.

Catangay appealed from the judgment, contending that the court erred in holding that the facts constitute reckless negligence.

ISSUE:

Was there reckless negligence on the part of the defendant as to support his conviction for the crime of homicide through reckless negligence?

HELD:

No.

The accidental cause of the discharge of the arm was not due to the fact of the defendant’s having it cocked and aimed, but to the accident of his stumbling against an embankment in the way. The occurrence was entirely accidental and involuntary. Consequently, the crime charged in this prosecution lacks the necessary element to allow of its being considered as reckless negligence.

The diligence with which the law requires the individual at all times to govern his conduct varies with the nature of the situation in which he is placed and with the importance of the act which he is to perform. In order to determine, therefore, whether there was imprudence or negligence on the part of the defendant, or whether or not he took the necessary precautions to avoid the unfortunate accident that occurred, the surrounding circumstances, the nature of the act that he was about to perform or was performing and the situation in which he found himself, must be taken into account.

Here, it was shown that, considering the positions of the deceased and the defendant, the latter could have discharged his gun at the animal without serious danger to the deceased, because the latter was not in the direct line of fire, but some distance away. Under the circumstances, it was not necessary for him to employ extraordinary caution, because the danger in which the deceased, who was at one side though some distance ahead of him, might then have been was not great. It was enough that he took the precaution that he did – that in attempting to approach the deceased, he pointed upwards the gun he was carrying and to took advantage of the occasion when the deceased was squatting and almost kneeling in this position the latter could not be in danger of being hit if the gun was fired. Neither can it be held that there was negligence or lack of care in the fact that the defendant tried to open the safety catch of the gun while he was going towards the deceased and when he was but a short distance from him, for, in view of the nature of the act which he was about to perform, it was natural that he should have the gun prepared to fire at the game, at once, or as soon as he should have succeeded in placing himself beside his companion.

Therefore, the shot causing the death of his companion cannot be attributed to a want of caution or precaution on the part of the defendant, and can only be attributed to an unforeseen and unfortunate accident, for which the defendant cannot be held criminally liable.

HELLO!
You can help law students and barristas by contributing to our collection. Please upload your case digests, reviewers or other relevant materials HERE.

For attribution or removal, contact us.