Murder (1999) The accused, not intending to kill the victim, treacherously shot the victim whi le the

victim was turning his back to him. He aimed at and hit the victim only o n the leg. The victim, however, died because of loss of blood. Can the accused b e liable for homicide or murder, considering that treachery was clearly involved Criminal Law Bar Examination Q & A (1994-2006) but there was no attempt to kill? Explain your answer. (3%) SUGGESTED ANSWER: The accused is liable for the death of the victim even though he merely aimed an d fired at the latter's leg, "not intending to kill the victim", considering tha t the gunshot was felonious and was the proximate cause of death. An offender is liable for all the direct, natural, and logical consequences of his felonious a ct although different from what he intended. However, since specific intent to k ill is absent, the crime for said death is only homicide and not murder (People vs. Pugay and Samson, 167 SCRA 439) ALTERNATIVE ANSWER: The accused is liable for the death of the victim in as much as his act of shoot ing the victim at the leg is felonious and is the proximate cause of death. A pe rson performing a felonious act is criminally liable for all the direct, natural , and logical consequences of such act although different from what he intended. And since such death was attended by treachery, the same will constitute murder but the accused should be given the benefit of the mitigating circumstance that he did not intend to commit so grave a wrong as that which was committed (Art. 13(3), RPC)