You are on page 1of 1

eople v. Guillen GR No.

L-1477, January 18, 1950 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 thedeath of Simeon Varela and of less serious physical injuries in regard to the other injuredpersons.HELD:The facts do not support the contention of the counsel for the appellant. In throwing the handgrenade at the President with the intention of killing him, the appellant acted with malice andis therefore liable for all the consequences of his wrongful act. As provided by Art. 4 of theRevised Penal Code, criminal liability is incurred by any person committing a felony althoughthe wronful act done be different from that which he intended. In criminal negligence, theinjury caused to another should be unintentional, it being simply the incident of another actperformed without malice. As held by thie Court, a deliberate intent to do an unlawful act isessentially inconsistent with the idea of reckless imprudence. Where such unlawful act iswilfully done, a mistake in the identity of the intended victim cannot be considered recklessimprudence.The sentence of the trial court is affirmed by unanimous vote and death sentence shall beexecuted in accordance with article 81 of the Revised Penal Code.