People v. Guillen GR No.

L-1477, January 18, 1950 FACTS: The accused Julio Guillen, was found guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of murder and multiple frustrated murder after his attempt to assassinate the President of the Philippines, Manuel Roxas on March 10, 1947. During the 1946 Presidential Elections, Guillen voted for the opposing candidate of Manuel Roxas. According to the accused, he was disappointed with the latter for failing to redeem and fulfill promises made by President Roxas during the elections. Consequently, the accused determined to assassinate the President and found the oppoturnity to do so on the night of March 10, 1947 when the President attended a popular meeting by the Liberal Party at Plaza de Miranda, Quiapo, Manila. Guillen first intended to use a revolver to accomplish his goal but he had previously lost his licensed firearm, so he thought of using two hand grenades 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 the President when the latter had just closed his speech. A general who was on the platform saw the smoking grenade and kicked it away from the platform towards an open space where he thought the grenade was likely to do the least harm. The grenade exploded in the middle of a group of persons standing close to the platform and grenade fragments seriously injured Simeon 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 wronful 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 thie 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.