PEOPLE VS.

GUILLEN 85 Philippine Reports 307 (1950) Defendant and Appellant: Julio Guillen Plaintiff and Appellee: The People of the Philippine Islands Ponente: J. Per Curiam FACTS: It was on the night of March 10, 1947, at a popular meeting held by the Liberal Party at Plaza de Miranda, when the accused, Julio Guillen, decided to carry out his plans of assassinating President Roxas. Before the crime had happened, on the morning of the same day, Guillen went to the house of Amado Hernandez whom he requested to prepare for him a document which will be his last will. To be specific, the reasons which impelled him to do the act were enumerated in the said document and further alleged that he is willing to bear the consequences of his act for the benefit of the welfare of the people. Thus, on that specific night, when Guillen reached Plaza de Miranda, he carried with him two grenades concealed in a paper bag and buried the other on a plant pot close to the platform. When the President had just closed his speech, Guillen hurled the other grenade and ran away. General Castaneda, who saw the smoking and the hissing of the grenade, without losing presence of mind, kicked it away from the platform towards the stairway. As a result, the grenade exploded in the middle of a group of persons. It was later found out that the fragments of the grenade had seriously injured Simeon Varela, Alfredo Eva, Jose Fabio, Pedro Carillo and Emilio Maglalang. Unfortunately, because of the mortal wounds caused by the fragments of the grenade, Simeon Varella died the following day. Guillen was then arrested in his house based on the testimony of the witness, Angel Garcia and volunteered information from Manuel Robles. Upon investigation, Guillen readily admitted his responsibility and justified his action in throwing the bomb. He even pointed out to the investigators the place where he hid his last will and subsequently signed it at the police headquarters. Thereby, the Court of First Instance in Manila convicted Guillen guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime murder and multiple frustrated murder. However, the counsel de oficio of the appellant alleged that the trial court committed several errors in hearing the case. The counsel contended that the accused is guilty only of homicide through reckless imprudence in regard to the death of Simeon Varela and of less serious physical injuries in regard to Simeon Varela, Alfredo Eva, Jose Fabio, Pedro Carillo and Emilio Maglalang. ISSUE: 1. Whether the appellant is insane because of the act committed 2. Whether the appellant be convicted only of the crime of homicide through reckless imprudence for the death of Simeon Varela? 3. Whether the appellant be convicted only of less serious physical injuries for the death of Simeon Varela, Alfredo Eva, Jose Fabio, Pedro Carillo and Emilio Maglalang?

DECISION: 1. No. Based on the results on the mental condition of the accused, which the court had ordered to be examined, the accused is not insane but found to be intelligent because of his strong will and convictions. However, the medical result also revealed that the accused suffers from a personality defect called Constitutional Psychopathic Inferiority, which is characterized by a weakness of censorship especially in relation to rationalization about the consequences of his acts. Thus, this condition could never be used as a defense on the act committed. 2. No. According to the accused himself, he performed the act voluntarily with the intention of killing the President. Therefore he is liable for all the consequences of his wrongful act. In accordance to Article 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. Moreover, where such unlawful act is wilfully done, a mistake in the identity of the intended victim cannot be considered as reckless imprudence. 3. No, on the same reason as stated above. However, it should be noted that the accused in commencing the commission of the crime does not execute what he intended to commit "by reason of some cause or accident other than his own spontaneous desistance." Hence, SC affirmed the decision of the First Instance of Manila in convicting the accused of murder for the death of Simeon Varela, and modified the decision on the death of the other four from multiple frustrated murder to multiple attempted murder, with a penalty of reclusion temporal in its maximum period to death. (Art. 248.)