UNITED STATES Vs VALERIO MENDIETA
UNITED STATES Vs VALERIO MENDIETA
UNITED STATES Vs VALERIO MENDIETA
This defendant was charged with the crime of assassination. The complaint alleged:
That the said accused Valerio Mendieta, on or about the 22d of February, 1914, in the municipality of
Cauayan, Isabela, did, willfully, unlawfully, treacherously and criminally, assault Pedro Acierto with a
lance, thereby causing him a serious wound in the left side, as a result of which the said Pedro Acierto
died. An act committed with violation of law.
The defendant was first arrested, taken before a justice of the peace and given a preliminary examination,
at the close of which the justice of the peace found from the evidence that there was probable cause for
believing that the defendant was guilty of the crime charged and held him for trial in the Court of First
Instance.
FACTS:
That on the 22nd day of February, 1914, the defendant Valerio Mendieta, the deceased Pedro Acierto,
Hilario Lauigan, together with many others, were in a cockpit in the barrio of Barringin, municipality of
Cauayan, Province of Isabela.
That while said parties were in said cockpit a quarrel arose concerning a bet made on certain fighting
roosters between a number of persons present, especially between the defendant Valerio Mendieta and
Hilario Lauigan. The proof does not show positively that the deceased. Pedro Acierto, was in any way
whatever connected with said quarrel.
That some time after said quarrel took place in the cockpit, Pedro Acierto, together with others, left the
cockpit for the purpose of returning to their respective homes; that soon after Pedro Acierto and his
companions had left the cockpit and while they were yet within a few yards of the cockpit, the defendant,
Valerio Mendieta, rushed up behind him and stabbed him in the back with a lance, which lance penetrated
his body and entered his intestines, as a result of which would Pedro Acierto died on the 17th of March,
1914.
The defendant makes a feeble effort to show that the would which he caused to Pedro Acierto was
caused in defending himself. He also attempts to show that the would which he inflicted upon Pedro
Acierto was intended for Hilario Lauigan.
Yes.
The first contention of the defendant, that he injured Pedro Acierto in self-defense, in our opinion, is not
supported by the record. Two or three witnesses were present and saw him inflict the would upon Pedro
Acierto. No offense had been offered by Pedro Acierto to the defendant, neither did he offer any
resistance to the attack of the defendant upon him. In fact the record shows that Pedro Acierto did not
know that he was being pursued by the defendant at the time the mortal would was inflicted. Even
admitting that the defendant intended to injure Hilario Lauigan instead of Pedro Acierto, even that, in view
of the mortal would which he inflicted upon the latter, in no way could be considered as a relief from his
criminal act. 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. Neither do we believe that the fact
that he made a mistake in killing the wrong man should be considered as a mitigating circumstance. We
are therefore of the opinion that the recommendation of the Attorney-General should be followed.
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. For that
reason the judgment of the lower court should be modified and the defendant should be sentenced to be
imprisoned with the penalty of 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. So ordered.