THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v.

JULIO GUILLEN reckless imprudence with regard to the death of Simeon Varela
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 President’s, saved the latter’s
life.
 However, the grenade still seriously injured Simeon 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).
 CFI found 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. He was sentenced to
death, indemnity to Varela’s heirs of P2,000, and costs.
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).
o The Court finds that a deliberate intent to do an unlawful
act is inconsistent with the idea of reckless imprudence.
o A mistake in the identity of the intended victim cannot be
considered as reckless imprudence (People v Gona, 54
Phil 605).
DISPOSITIVE:
CFI conviction affirmed.

ISSUE: W/N a mistake in the blow, inflicted with malice, exempts

one from criminal liability – No.
 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