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 $now how to swim, he san$ 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, (oreover, Venancio has not returned to his lodging lodging in (anila, where he lived as a bachelor in the house of an acquaintance) and his &ersonal belongings have been delivered 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 &resumed 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 the observers could see) and this circumstance, cou&led with the $nown fact that human life must inevitably be e"tinguished by as&hy"iation under water, is conclusive of his death. The &ossibility that he might have swum ashore, after rising in a s&ot hidden from the view of his com&anions, we consider too remote to be entertained for a moment. /s to the criminal res&onsibility of the accused for the death thus occasioned the li$ewise can be no doubt) for it is obvious that the deceased, in throwing himself in the river, acted solely in obedience to the 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 latter to do something 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 attenuating circumstance the fact that the offender had no intention to commit so great a wrong as that committed. 2*ar. 3, art. 4 *enal !ode.5
