Republic of the Philippines

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
OFFICE OF THE CITY PROSECUTOR
City of Manila

SP02 JUAN A. DELA CRUZ,

Complainant, I.S. NO: 00356-5-52783

FOR: FRUSTRATED HOMICIDE

-versus- (Art. 249 in relation to Art. 6 of the
Revised Penal Code)

RAMIL O. VERSOZA,
Respondent.
x-----------------------------------------
x

RESOLUTION

The respondent MALOU E. REYES and RAMIL O. VERSOZA

were charged of the crime of FRUSTRATED HOMICIDE in a
complaint filed by SP02 JUAN A. DELA CRUZ.

In support of his complaint, the herein complainant attached

the following documents;

1. Joint Affidavit of Manuel Del Rio and Carla Del Rio;

2. Affidavit of Sgt. Pedro Santiago
3. Affidavit of Dr. Bienvenido Torres

Statement of Facts

Based on the investigation conducted by the Police Investigator, SP02

JUAN A. DELA CRUZ, the facts of the case are stated hereunder:

That on the 24th of December, 2012, in

the City of Quezon, National Capital Region,
Philippines and within the jurisdiction of this
Honorable Court, accused RAMIL O.
VERSOZA, with intent to kill, did then and
there wilfully, unlawfully and feloniously
attack, slash and stab GINA DEL RIO Y DELA
CRUZ with a bladed weapon, thereby
inflicting fatal wounds on the right side of her
chest, thus performing all the acts of execution
 which would have produced the crime of
Homicide as a consequence, but which,
nevertheless, did not produce the same by
reason of causes independent of her will, that
is, by the timely and able medical assistance
rendered to GINA DEL RIO Y DELA CRUZ ,
to her damage and prejudice.

That the crime was attended by an

aggravating circumstance of obvious
ungratefulness, accused RAMIL O. VERSOZA,
as family driver, fatally stabbed her
employers, Manuel and Carla del Rio’s,
daughter.

CONTRARY TO LAW.

In the joint affidavit of witnesses Manuel and Carla Del Rio,

they stated that on December 24, 2012, Gina asked for their
permission to attend a party of a friend to which they agreed. Manuel
Del Rio specifically instructed his daughter Gina, that if she goes
home past 8:00 p.m., she should pass through the back door of their
house. At around 7:00 in the evening, Manuel Del Rio arrived home
after a meeting and thereafter instructed his subordinate Sgt. Pedro
Santiago to obtain certain files for him in Camp Crame. At about 8:55
p.m., Manuel Del Rio received a text message from Gina saying that
the latter is already within the premises of their house. At 9:01 p.m.,
Manuel Del Rio heard Sgt. Santiago’s voice and immediately ran to
the guest room where his wife, Carla Del Rio, was having a massage.
The two immediately went down and rushed to scene where they saw
Gina lying down and covered with blood. Manuel immediately called
the police by phone to report the incident. He and his wife then
carried Gina to their car and rushed her straight to the hospital which
was only five (5) minutes away from their house. When they arrived
at the hospital, several doctors rushed to their aid. The head doctor
informed Manuel Del Rio and Carla Del Rio that their daughter Gina
was in critical condition, however, her situation would have been
more severe if she did not receive timely medical intervention.

In the affidavit of Sgt. Pedro Santiago, he stated that at 8:45

p.m. of December 24, 2012, he was resting on the 2nd floor of his
superior, Manuel Del Rio’s house. He was instructed by Manuel Del
Rio to proceed to Camp Crame to obtain some documents from the
latter’s office. While going down the stairs, he saw the light in the
house’s garage was open and heard that there were people talking in
the garage. He recognized Ramil O. Versoza’s voice (the family’s
driver) “Bakit mo nagawang saksakin si Gina?” When he opened the
door, he saw Gina’s body sprawled on the floor. He also saw Versoza
and respondent Malou E. Reyes (the family’s maid) covered with
blood and were three (3) meters away from Gina who was still
trembling and bloodied. He pointed his gun at the two. He later on
yelled to call the attention of Manuel Del Rio and Carla Del Rio. When
the two left to go to the hospital, Sgt. Santiago tied Versoza and
respondent Malou E. Reyes, informed them of his intention to arrest
them based on what he saw and heard, and recited to them their
Miranda rights. The two remained silent.

In his counter-affidavit, the accused Ramil o. Versoza was about

to park his employer’s car to the garage at 8:45 p.m. when he was
approached by Mario Santos, the neighbor’s driver. While they were
having a small conversation, Mario saw Malou E. Reyes walking fast
towards the back of the house, holding a safety deposit box and a
kitchen knife. Mario Santos told the accused to follow Malou for
according to another house helper, Malou was acting differently in
the past few days. The accused followed Malou and was surprised to
see her stabbed the victim, Gina. He tried to stop Malou by grabbing
her arm, but Malou stabbed Gina a second time. He was also able to
get the safety box from Malou but he lost grip and dropped it. Sgt.
Santiago walked into the scene, and upon seeing Gina on the floor, he
shouted for help. Sgt. Santiago drew his service firearm, aimed it at
them, grabbed a rope and tied their hands. The police arrived shortly.

Mario Santos, the neighbor’s driver also gave an affidavit

corroborating parts of the counter-affidavit of Ramil O. Versoza.

In the affidavit of Dr. Bienvenido Torres, Medico-Legal Doctor

at the Philippine National Police Crime Laboratory in Camp Crame,
he stated that an evaluation of victim’s body after the incident yielded
the following results:

1) The victim had two (2) penetrating stab wounds on the right
side of her chest; measuring 0.8 x 1.2 cm on the antero-medial
portion on the 4th intercostal space, 3.4 cm from the sternal
border and another measuring 0.5 x 0.9 cm on the lung apex,
immediately caudal to the anterior third clavicle, causing a
hairline fracture of the upper boarder of the first rib;

2) The stab wounds resulted inpleural effusion and Hemothorax

of the right lung as per chest X-ray findings;

3) The patient is under critical condition, with mechanical

ventilation status post insertion of chest tube.

Malou E. Reyes waived her rights under Art. 125 of the Revised
Penal Code and after undergoing an inquest, a resolution was
prepared and an information was filed earlier. As to Ramil O.
Versoza, a preliminary investigation was conducted.

Analyses/Findings and Recommendations

Article 249 and Article 6 of the Revised Penal Code specifically

state as follows:

“Art. 249. Homicide. — Any person who, not

falling within the provisions of Article 246,
shall kill another without the attendance of
any of the circumstances enumerated in the
next preceding article, shall be deemed guilty
of homicide and be punished by reclusion
temporal.” (Italics supplied.)

“Art. 6 – Consummated, Frustrated &

Attempted Felonies

Consummated felonies as well as those which

are frustrated and attempted are punishable.

A felony is consummated when all the

elements necessary for its execution and
accomplishment are present; and it is
frustrated when the offender performs all the
acts of execution which would produce the
felony as a consequence but which,
nevertheless, do not produce it by reason of
causes independent of the will of the
perpetrator’s xxx.”(Italics supplied.)

In Adam vs. Court of Appeals and People of the Philippines1, the

accused was held to be guilty of frustrated homicide. The Court held
that such crime was deemed to require the intent of the perpetrator to
kill his victim. In People vs. Fortich2, it was held that the intent to kill
being an essential element of the offense of frustrated or attempted
homicide, said element must be proved by clear and convincing
evidence. Indeed, the nature of the weapon used for the attack and
the direction at which it was aimed unmistakably showed petitioner's
intent to kill.3

1
G.R. No. 139830, November 21, 2002
2
G.R. No. 80399-404. November 13, 1997
3
People vs. Recto, G.R. No. 129069, October 17, 2001, p. 25
 As reiterated in the case of Cervantes vs. People of the
Philippines4, what determines the presence of intent to kill is the
nature and the extent of the wound inflicted for it must be supported
by independent proof showing that the wound inflicted was sufficient
to cause the victim’s death without timely medical intervention. The
danger to life of any wound is dependent upon a number of factors:
the extent of the injury; the form of the wound; the region of the body
affected; the blood vessels; nerves, or organs involved; the entrance of
disease-producing bacteria or other organisms into the wound; the
age and constitution of the person injured; and the opportunities for
administering proper surgical treatment.

In People vs. Raquinio5, Appellant used a lethal weapon, a bolo.

The thrust — "sudden and unexpected" — was directed at a vital spot
of the body, the abdomen. Were it not for the fact that Agustin
Raquinio held the defendant fast and grabbed the bolo from his hand,
he would have finished off his victim. The wounds suffered by the
latter would have been fatal, were it not for the timely and adequate
medical assistance rendered him. Intention to kill, a mental process,
may be inferred from the nature of the weapon used, the place of the
wound, the seriousness thereof, and the persistence to kill the victim.

As in this case, the findings of the medico-legal clearly state the

probable fatality of such had it not been attended medically. The facts
of the case before us squarely fall under the crime of Frustrated
Homicide. The fatal wounds found in Gina’s body were directly
caused by the kitchen knife (with a scratch and splattered with blood)
which was plunged twice into the right side of her chest. Sgt. Santiago
reasonably believed that the act of stabbing Gina was committed by
Ramil O. Versoza and respondent Malou E. Reyes due to presence of
the following circumstances:
(1) He heard Mang Tino’s voice when he was three meters away
from the rear door;

(2) He heard Mang Tino utter the question “Bakit mo nagawang

saksakin si Gina?;”

(3) He saw blood all over the floor, Gina lying down and
trembling; (4) He saw the two accused covered in blood but
nonetheless unharmed.

The medico legal doctor tasked to evaluate the condition of the

victim, Gina del Rio, attested that due to the nature of the wounds,
she was placed in a critical condition. The stab wounds penetrated the
victim's lungs; causing blood and air to enter the same. The intensity

4
G.R. No. 175023, July 5, 2010
5
G.R. No. L-16488, August 12, 1966
of the wounds would have resulted in the victim's death had it not
been for timely medical intervention.

The self-serving affidavit of the accused denying his

participation in the crime cannot be given more weight. In People v.
Valentino6, a murder case, the court ruled that denials, if
unsubstantiated by clear and convincing evidence, are negative and
self-serving which deserve no weight in law and cannot be given
greater evidentiary weight over the testimonies of credible witness on
affirmative matters. Moreover, in People v. Benjamin Peteluna7, the
court again enunciated thatIt is a time-honored principle that the
positive identification of the appellant by a witness destroys the
defense of alibi and denial.

In People v. Rey Monticalvo y Magno8, the court expressed that

denial is an inherently weak defense and has always been viewed
upon with disfavor by the courts due to the ease with which it can be
concocted. Denial as a defense crumbles in the light of positive
identification of the accused, as in this case. Verily, mere denial,
unsubstantiated by clear and convincing evidence, is negative self-
serving evidence which cannot be given greater evidentiary weight
than the testimony of the complaining witness who testified on
affirmative matters. Like denial, alibi is not looked upon with favor by
the trial court. It also cannot prevail over witnesses’ positive
identification of appellant as the perpetrator of the crime.

In his affidavit, Mario Santos did not make any statement

asserting that Ramil O. Versoza did not commit the crime. The
statement he made over Malou’s different behaviour cannot be
appreciated for it was not his personal observation, hence, a mere
heresay.

Obvious ungratefulness of the accused Ramil O. Versoza was

established in the complaint for being a house help of the family.
Jurisprudence has established the 4 requisites for such circumstance
to be held present in certain situations,

(1) that the offended party had trusted the offender;

(2) that the offender abused such trust by committing a crime

against the offended party;

(3) that the act be committed with obvious ungratefulness and

(4) the ungratefulness be obvious, clear and manifest ingratitude on
the part of the accused.

6
GR No. 91492, January 19, 1995
7
GR no. 187048, January 23, 2013
8
GR No. 193507, January 20, 2013
 It could be contemplated in this case that when Gina arrived,
entering the back door, she was unaware that such events would
occur. As a house help, the accused gained the trust of the family, so
the succeeding act of stabbing the victim that was allegedly done
constitutes obvious ungratefulness, personally to Gina, Manuel and
Carla Del Rio.

Respondent MALOU E. REYES along with Ramil O. Versoza

were both found at the garage by Sgt. Santiago. Particularly, they
were found to have blood all over their clothes and were three (3)
meters away from the body of the victim who was still trembling and
almost lifeless. Malou E. Reyes and Ramil O. Versoza, were soon tied
by Sgt. Santiago, and were informed of their Miranda rights prior to
their detention and chose to remain silent.

In light of this, the Investigating Officer is convinced that the

warrantless arrest was made proper pursuant to the exception laid
down in Rule 113, Section 5 (b) of the Revised Rules of Court which
states:

SEC. 5. Arrest without warrant; when

lawful.—A peace officer or a private person
may, without a warrant, arrest a person:
x xx
(b) When an offense has just been committed
and he has probable cause to believe based on
personal knowledge of facts or circumstances
that the person to be arrested has committed
it; and
x xx

The following facts and circumstances based on the personal

knowledge of the arresting officer show that there was probable cause
to believe that respondent Malou E. Reyes and Ramil O. Versoza had
just committed a crime, viz.:

1. The presence of respondent Malou E. Reyes and Ramil O. Versoza

at the scene of the crime;

2. The fact that they both had blood all over their clothes;

3. Gina lying on the floor, still trembling from the wounds on her
chest; and

4. Versoza’s statement which Sgt. Santiago overheard prior to

entering the rear door.
 WHEREFORE, IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING, it is
most respectfully recommended that an information for the crime of
Frustrated Homicide be filed against the respondent MALOU E.
REYES. A bail bond of P24,000.00 is recommended.

Quezon City, Manila.

SARAH R. CRUZ
Assistant City Prosecutor

Approved by:

DANIEL F. VENTURA
Chief City Prosecutor