G.R. No. L-9206; November 25, 1914
THE UNITED STATES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. JOAQUIN CATANGAY, defendant-appellant.

FACTS:
On the night of December 4, 1912, in Candelaria, Tayabas, the defendant Joaquin Catangay, together with Mauricio Ramos (the deceased) and Santiago Abandia, went deer hunting. While traversing a field, Ramos, who was in front with a lantern on his forehead, and Catangay, who was behind him, spotted a deer. Catangay, in his haste to approach Ramos and get a better shot, stumbled against an embankment (pilapil), causing him to fall to one knee. This accident discharged his shotgun, which was at the time cocked and aimed at the deer. The shot struck Ramos in the head, killing him instantly. There was no prior animosity between the accused and the deceased. The Court of First Instance convicted Catangay of homicide through reckless negligence under Article 568 in relation to Article 404 of the Penal Code, sentencing him to arresto mayor. The court found negligence in Catangay’s act of carrying his shotgun cocked and aimed while approaching the deceased from behind.

ISSUE:
Whether or not the defendant Joaquin Catangay is criminally liable for homicide through reckless negligence.

RULING:
No. The Supreme Court reversed the judgment of conviction and acquitted the defendant.
The Court held that the incident was a purely accidental and involuntary occurrence, lacking the essential element of reckless negligence required under Article 568 of the Penal Code. For criminal liability to attach for acts of negligence, the damage must be the result of a voluntary act, albeit without malice. Here, the direct cause of the gun’s discharge was the unforeseen accident of stumbling against an embankment, not the voluntary act of carrying the weapon cocked.
The Court examined the surrounding circumstances to determine the required degree of care. Considering that the defendant was engaged in hunting, that the deceased was not directly in the line of fire between the defendant and the deer, and that the defendant’s attention was reasonably fixed on the game, his act of having his gun ready was a natural precaution for the intended act and did not constitute a lack of due care. The fatal result was attributed to a misfortune or accident (caso fortuito), for which no criminal liability arises. The testimony given during the preliminary investigation did not alter this conclusion, as it did not establish a negligent voluntary act.