The United States vs. Valerio Mendieta

A person who maliciously and willfully kills another by mistake, intending to kill a different person, remains criminally responsible for the killing; the mistake in identity neither relieves him of liability nor constitutes a mitigating circumstance. A killing is qualified as assassination by treachery where the accused attacks the victim from behind with a lance, without warning, and the victim is unaware of the pursuit.

The prosecution was instituted by the United States against Valerio Mendieta under the Penal Code then in force, which classified assassination as a crime and prescribed cadena temporal or cadena perpetua with accessory penalties under article 56. The United States appeared as plaintiff-appellee, while Mendieta appeared as defendant-appellant.

On February 22, 1914, Valerio Mendieta, Pedro Acierto, Hilario Lauigan, and many others were at a cockpit in the barrio of Barringin, municipality of Cauayan, Province of Isabela. A quarrel arose concerning a bet made on fighting roosters, especially between Mendieta and Lauigan. The proof did not positively show that Acierto was in any way connected with that quarrel.

Some time after the quarrel, Acierto and others left the cockpit to return to their homes. While they were still within a few yards of the cockpit, Mendieta rushed up behind Acierto and stabbed him in the back with a lance. The lance penetrated Acierto's body and entered his intestines. Acierto died on March 17, 1914. The complaint charged that Mendieta, on or about February 22, 1914, in Cauayan, Isabela, willfully, unlawfully, treacherously, and criminally assaulted Acierto with a lance, causing a serious wound in the left side that resulted in death.

Mendieta made a feeble effort to show that the wound he caused Acierto was inflicted in self-defense. He also attempted to show that the wound he inflicted on Acierto was intended for Lauigan. The record showed that two or three witnesses saw him inflict the wound on Acierto; that Acierto had offered no offense to Mendieta and offered no resistance to the attack; and that Acierto did not know he was being pursued by Mendieta at the time the mortal wound was inflicted.

• Insufficiency of Evidence: Mendieta, as appellant, maintained that the only question presented was one of fact and that the evidence adduced during trial was not sufficient to show beyond a reasonable doubt that he was guilty of the crime charged.
• Self-Defense: Mendieta attempted to show that the wound he caused to Pedro Acierto was inflicted in defending himself.
• Mistake in Identity: Mendieta also attempted to show that the wound he inflicted upon Pedro Acierto was intended for Hilario Lauigan.

• Guilt and Treachery: The Attorney-General, for the United States, concluded that Mendieta was guilty of the crime charged in the complaint, with the qualifying circumstance of treachery.
• No Mitigating Circumstance: The Attorney-General argued that there were no mitigating circumstances and recommended that the lower court's decision be modified, with Mendieta sentenced to cadena perpetua, with accessory penalties, indemnity of P1,000, and costs.

• Sufficiency of Evidence: Whether the evidence adduced during trial was sufficient to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Mendieta was guilty of the crime charged.
• Self-Defense: Whether Mendieta acted in self-defense when he inflicted the mortal wound on Pedro Acierto.
• Mistake in Identity: Whether Mendieta's alleged mistake in killing Pedro Acierto instead of Hilario Lauigan relieved him of criminal responsibility or constituted a mitigating circumstance.
• Treachery and Mitigating Circumstances: Whether the killing was attended by the qualifying circumstance of treachery and whether any mitigating circumstance attended its commission.
• Penalty: Whether the lower court's penalty should be modified to cadena perpetua with accessory penalties, indemnity, and costs.

• Sufficiency of Evidence: Yes. The record established beyond reasonable doubt that Mendieta was guilty of the crime charged, with the qualifying circumstance of treachery and no mitigating circumstances.
• Self-Defense: No. Self-defense was not supported by the record; Acierto offered no offense to Mendieta and no resistance to the attack, and he did not know he was being pursued when the mortal wound was inflicted.
• Mistake in Identity: No. A mistake in killing one man instead of another, when the accused acted maliciously and willfully, cannot relieve him from criminal responsibility and is not a mitigating circumstance.
• Treachery and Mitigating Circumstances: Yes as to treachery; no as to mitigating circumstances. The killing was qualified by treachery, and no mitigating circumstance attended its commission.
• Penalty: Modified. The judgment was modified to impose cadena perpetua, with accessory penalties provided by law, indemnity of P1,000 to the heirs of the deceased, and costs.

• Sufficiency of Evidence: The Court examined the record and found certain facts undisputed: Mendieta, Acierto, Lauigan, and many others were at a cockpit on February 22, 1914; a quarrel over a cockfight bet arose especially between Mendieta and Lauigan; Acierto was not positively shown to be connected with the quarrel; after the quarrel, Acierto and others left the cockpit; and while still within a few yards of it, Mendieta rushed up behind Acierto and stabbed him in the back with a lance, which penetrated his body and entered his intestines, causing death on March 17, 1914. Two or three witnesses saw Mendieta inflict the wound. On these facts, the record showed beyond a reasonable doubt that Mendieta was guilty of the crime charged, with qualifying treachery and no mitigating circumstances.
• Self-Defense: The claim of self-defense was not supported by the record. No offense had been offered by Acierto to Mendieta, and Acierto offered no resistance to the attack. The record also showed that Acierto did not know he was being pursued by Mendieta when the mortal wound was inflicted. Because the victim neither unlawfully attacked Mendieta nor gave him any reason to defend himself, the claim failed.
• Mistake in Identity: Even admitting that Mendieta intended to injure Lauigan instead of Acierto, the mortal wound was inflicted on Acierto. A mistake in killing one man instead of another, when the accused acted maliciously and willfully, cannot relieve him from criminal responsibility. The Court also held that the mistake in killing the wrong man should not be considered a mitigating circumstance.
• Treachery and Mitigating Circumstances: The record showed beyond a reasonable doubt that the crime was committed with the qualifying circumstance of treachery. The attack was made from behind with a lance while Acierto was leaving the cockpit, without warning and while he was unaware of the pursuit. The Court found no mitigating circumstances attending the commission of the crime and adopted the Attorney-General's conclusion that the lower court's finding of a mitigating circumstance should not stand.
• Penalty: Because the crime was qualified by treachery and no mitigating circumstances attended its commission, the lower court's sentence of seventeen years four months and one day of cadena temporal was modified. The Court sentenced Mendieta to cadena perpetua, with the accessory penalties provided for by law, to indemnify the heirs of the deceased in the sum of P1,000, and to pay the costs.

• Mistake in Killing the Wrong Person — A person who maliciously and willfully kills another by mistake, intending to kill a different person, remains criminally responsible for the killing. The mistake in killing the wrong man neither relieves him from criminal responsibility nor constitutes a mitigating circumstance. Applied: Mendieta's alleged intent to injure Hilario Lauigan instead of Pedro Acierto did not excuse or mitigate the mortal wound inflicted on Acierto.
• Treachery as a Qualifying Circumstance — The killing was qualified as assassination by treachery where the accused rushed up behind the victim and stabbed him in the back with a lance, without warning, while the victim was unaware of the pursuit and offered no resistance or opportunity to defend himself. Applied: the Court found the record established beyond reasonable doubt that the crime was attended by treachery.
• Self-Defense; Absence of Unlawful Aggression — Self-defense is not supported where the victim offered no offense to the accused and offered no resistance to the attack, and the victim did not know he was being pursued when the mortal wound was inflicted. Applied: Mendieta's self-defense claim was rejected.

• "The first contention of the defendant, that he injured Pedro Acierto in self-defense, in our opinion, is not supported by the record." — The Court rejected Mendieta's self-defense claim because Acierto offered no offense and no resistance and did not know he was being pursued.
• "That he made a mistake in killing one man instead of another, when it is proved that he acted maliciously and willfully, cannot relieve him from criminal responsibility." — This states the ratio decidendi on mistake in identity: killing the wrong person does not excuse criminal liability.
• "Neither do we believe that the fact that he made a mistake in killing the wrong man should be considered as a mitigating circumstance." — The Court expressly held that the mistake in identity was not a mitigating circumstance.
• "After a careful examination of the record, we are of the opinion that the record shows beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant is guilty of the crime charged, with the qualifying circumstances of treachery and that there were no mitigating circumstances attending the commission of the crime." — This is the Court's conclusion on guilt, treachery, and the absence of mitigating circumstances.

• Article 56, Penal Code — The lower court imposed the accessory penalty provided for in article 56, and the Supreme Court likewise sentenced Mendieta to cadena perpetua with the accessory penalties provided for by law. The provision was cited as the source of the accessory penalties attached to the principal penalty.

Torres, Moreland, Trent, and Araullo, JJ., concur.