THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. JULIO GUILLEN, defendant-appellant GR No.

L-1477 January 18, 1950 FACTS Julio Guillen y Corpus, brought two hand grenades to a populated meeting held by the Liberal Party at Plaza de Miranda, Quiapo. President Roxas gave a speech of the advantages of the parity rights in the meeting. Upon the close of the speech, defendant threw one of the said grenades toward the platform, but the presence of mind of General Castaneda, who kicked the grenade and threw his body over that of the Presidents, saved the latters life. However, the grenade still seriously injured Sim eon Varela who died on the following day as a result of mortal wounds caused by the grenade fragments, as well as Alfredo Eva, Jose Fabio, Pedro Carillo and Emilio Maglalang. Guillen testifying in his own behalf said that although it was not his main intention to kill those surrounding the President, he felt no conjunction in killing them also in order to attain his main purpose of killing the President. The defendant was charged by the CFI (see decision below), to which the counsel of the defendant submitted contentions of error, including: (1) in finding the appellant guilty of the murder of Simeon Varela, (2) in finding the appellant guilty of the complex crime of murder and multiple frustrated murder (that of the said other victims and the President). DECISION COURT OF ORIGIN CFI rendered the defendant guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of murder of Simeon Valera and multiple frustrated murders of the said victims including the President. ISSUE W/N a mistake in the blow, inflicted with malice, exempts one from criminal liability DECISION APPELLATE COURT The Court, writing per curiam, AFFIRMED the decision of the CFI, stating that the facts do not support the contention of counsel that the appellant is guilty only of homicide through reckless imprudence in regard to the death of Simeon Varela and of less physical injuries in regard to other said victims. In throwing said hand grenade at the President with the intention of killing him, the Court stated that the appellant acted with malice, and was therefore liable for all consequences of his wrongful act, for in accordance with Article 4 of the RPC, criminal liability is incurred by any person committing felony (delito) although the wrongful act done be different from that which he intended. The act cannot be classified as criminal negligence because such requires that the injury incurred be unintentional as the incident of an act performed without malice (People v Sara, 55 Phil 939). The Court finds that a deliberate intent to do an unlawful act is inconsistent with the idea of reckless imprudence. A mistake in the identity of the intended victim cannot be considered as reckless imprudence (People v Gona, 54 Phil 605).