Facts:

Facts: On January 26, 1909, Cecile Tanedo, a landowner, went with some workers to
work on the dam on his land, carrying with him his shotgun & a few shells. Upon reaching the
dam, the accused went on his way to hunt for wild chickens, meeting the victim, Feliciano
Sanchez, the latter's Mother & Uncle. The accused went into the forest upon the recommendation
of the deceased to continue his search for the elusive wild chickens. Upon seeing one, Tanedo
shot one, but simultaneously, he heard a human cry out in pain. After seeing that Sanchez was
wounded, Tanedo ran back to his workers and asked one, Bernardino Tagampa, to help him hide
the body, which they did by putting it amidst the tall cogon grass, & later burying in an old well.
Only 1 shot was heard that morning & a chicken was killed by a gunshot wound. Chicken
feathers were found at the scene of the crime. There was no enmity between the accused and the
deceased. Prior to the trial, the accused denied all knowledge of the crime, but later confessed
during the trial. The lower court found the accused guilty of homicide, having invited the
deceased into the forest & intentionally shooting him in the chest. Accused was sentenced to 14
years, 8 months & 1 day of reclusion temporal, accessories, indemnifications & costs.
The only possible reason that the accused could have for killing the deceased would be
found in the fact of a sudden quarrel between them during the hunt. That idea is wholly negative
by the fact that the chicken and the man were shot at the same time, there having been only one
shot fired. Hence, the decision was appealed.

Issue:
Whether or not the court erred in disregarding the qualifying circumstance of accident
without fault or intention of causing it.
Held:
Yes. The idea that Tanedo intended to kill Sanchez is negated by the fact that the chicken
and the man were shot at the same time, there having only one shot fired. Also, according to:

Article 1 of the Penal Code: Crimes or misdemeanors are voluntary acts and omissions
punished by law
Article 8: He who while performing a legal act with due care, causes some injury by mere
accident without liability or intention of causing it.
Section 57 of Code of Criminal Procedure: A defendant in a criminal action shall be
presumed to be innocent until the contrary is proved, and in case of a reasonable doubt that
his guilt is satisfactorily shown he shall be entitled to an acquittal
In this case there is absolutely no evidence of negligence upon the part of the accused.
Neither is there any question that he was engaged in the commission of a lawful act when the
accident occurred. Neither is there any evidence of the intention of the accused to cause the death
of the deceased. The only thing in the case at all suspicious upon the part of the defendant are his
concealment and denial.

The court quoted State vs. Legg: "Where accidental killing is relied upon as a defense,
the
accused is not required to prove such a defense by a preponderance of the evidence, because
there is a denial of intentional killing, and the burden is upon the state to show that it was
intentional, and if, from a consideration of all the evidence, both that for the state and the
prisoner, there is a reasonable doubt as to whether or not the killing was accidental or intentional,
the jury should acquit."
The judgment of conviction was therefore, reversed and the defendant was acquitted,