People v Guillen

G.R. No. L-1477, January 18, 1950

TOPIC: Criminal liability | How incurred | Wrongful act done be different from what was incurred
THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF AND APPELLEE, VS. JULIO GUILLEN, DEFENDANT AND APPELLANT.

FACTS:
The accused Julio Guillen, was found guilty beyond reasonable doubt of thecrime of murder and multiple frustrated murder
after his attempt to assassinate the Presidentof the Philippines, Manuel Roxas on March 10, 1947.During the 1946
Presidential Elections, Guillen voted for the opposing candidateof Manuel Roxas. According to the accused, he was
disappointed with the latter for failing toredeem and fulfill promises made by President Roxas during the elections.
Consequently, theaccused determined to assassinate the President and found the oppoturnity to do so on thenight of March
10, 1947 when the President attended a popular meeting by the Liberal Partyat Plaza de Miranda, Quiapo, Manila. Guillen
first intended to use a revolver to accomplish hisgoal but he had previously lost his licensed firearm, so he thought of using
two handgrenades which were given to him by an American soldier in exchange for two bottles of whisky. The accused stood
on the chair he had been sitting on and hurled the grenade at thePresident when the latter had just closed his speech. A
general who was on the platform sawthe smoking grenade and kicked it away from the platform towards an open space
where hethought the grenade was likely to do the least harm. The grenade exploded in the middle of agroup of persons
standing close to the platform and grenade fragments seriously injuredSimeon Varela, who died the next day due to the
mortal wounds caused, and several other persons. Guillen was arrested and he readily admitted his responsibility.

ISSUE:WON the accused was guilty only of homicide through reckless imprudence in regard to the death of Simeon Varela
and of less serious physical injuries in regard to the other injured persons.

HELD: The facts do not support the contention of the counsel for the appellant. In throwing the hand grenade at the
President with the intention of killing him, the appellant acted with malice and is therefore liable for all the consequences of
his wrongful act. As provided by Art. 4 of the Revised Penal Code, criminal liability is incurred by any person committing a
felony although the wrongful act done be different from that which he intended. In criminal negligence, the injury caused to
another should be unintentional, it being simply the incident of another act performed without malice. As held by the Court,
a deliberate intent to do an unlawful act is essentially inconsistent with the idea of reckless imprudence. Where such
unlawful act is wilfully done, a mistake in the identity of the intended victim cannot be considered reckless imprudence. The
sentence of the trial court is affirmed by unanimous vote and death sentence shall be executed in accordance with article 81
of the Revised Penal Code.