Republic of the Philippines
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
OFFICE OF THE CITY PROSECUTOR
City of Manila
"SP01 ENRICO VALENCIA, " "
"Complainant, " "
" "I.S. NO: ________________ "
" " "
"-versus- "FOR: FRUSTRATED HOMICIDE "
" "(Art. 249 in relation to Art. 6 of "
"TENORIO PALPARAN, "the Revised Penal Code) "
"Respondent. " "
"x-----------------------------------" "
"--------x " "
R E S O L U T I O N
The respondent MARINA ANGELES and TENORIO PALPARAN were charged of
the crime of FRUSTRATED HOMICIDE in a complaint filed by SP02 ENRICO
VALENCIA.
In support of his complaint, the herein complainant attached the
following documents;
1. Joint Affidavit of Manuel Del Rio and Carla Del Rio;
2. Affidavit of Sgt. Pedro Santiago
3. Affidavit of Dr. Bienvenido Torres
Statement of Facts
Based on the investigation conducted by the Police Investigator, SP02
ENRICO VALENCIA, the facts of the case are stated hereunder:
That on the 24th of December, 2012, in the City of Quezon,
National Capital Region, Philippines and within the jurisdiction
of this Honorable Court, accused TERNORIO PALPARAN, with intent
to kill, did then and there wilfully, unlawfully and feloniously
attack, slash and stab GINA DEL RIO Y DELA CRUZ with a bladed
weapon, thereby inflicting fatal wounds on the right side of her
chest, thus performing all the acts of execution which would
have produced the crime of Homicide as a consequence, but which,
nevertheless, did not produce the same by reason of causes
independent of her will, that is, by the timely and able medical
assistance rendered to GINA DEL RIO Y DELA CRUZ , to her damage
and prejudice.
That the crime was attended by an aggravating circumstance
of obvious ungratefulness, accused TENORIO PALPARAN, as family
driver, fatally stabbed her employers, Manuel and Carla del
Rio's, daughter.
CONTRARY TO LAW.
In the joint affidavit of witnesses Manuel and Carla Del Rio, they
stated that on December 24, 2012, Gina asked for their permission to attend
a party of a friend to which they agreed. Manuel Del Rio specifically
instructed his daughter Gina, that if she goes home past 8:00 p.m., she
should pass through the back door of their house. At around 7:00 in the
evening, Manuel Del Rio arrived home after a meeting and thereafter
instructed his subordinate Sgt. Pedro Santiago to obtain certain files for
him in Camp Crame. At about 8:55 p.m., Manuel Del Rio received a text
message from Gina saying that the latter is already within the premises of
their house. At 9:01 p.m., Manuel Del Rio heard Sgt. Santiago's voice and
immediately ran to the guest room where his wife, Carla Del Rio, was having
a massage. The two immediately went down and rushed to scene where they saw
Gina lying down and covered with blood. Manuel immediately called the
police by phone to report the incident. He and his wife then carried Gina
to their car and rushed her straight to the hospital which was only five
(5) minutes away from their house. When they arrived at the hospital,
several doctors rushed to their aid. The head doctor informed Manuel Del
Rio and Carla Del Rio that their daughter Gina was in critical condition,
however, her situation would have been more severe if she did not receive
timely medical intervention.
In the affidavit of Sgt. Pedro Santiago, he stated that at 8:45 p.m.
of December 24, 2012, he was resting on the 2nd floor of his superior,
Manuel Del Rio's house. He was instructed by Manuel Del Rio to proceed to
Camp Crame to obtain some documents from the latter's office. While going
down the stairs, he saw the light in the house's garage was open and heard
that there were people talking in the garage. He recognized Tenorio
Palparan a.k.a. Mang Tino's voice (the family's driver) "Bakit mo nagawang
saksakin si Gina?" When he opened the door, he saw Gina's body sprawled on
the floor. He also saw Palparan and respondent Marina Angeles(the family's
maid) covered with blood and were three (3) meters away from Gina who was
still trembling and bloodied. He pointed his gun at the two. He later on
yelled to call the attention of Manuel Del Rio and Carla Del Rio. When the
two left to go to the hospital, Sgt. Santiago tied Palparan and respondent
Marina Angeles, informed them of his intention to arrest them based on what
he saw and heard, and recited to them their Miranda rights. The two
remained silent.
In his counter-affidavit, the accused Tenorio Palparan was about to
park his employer's car to the garage at 8:45 p.m. when he was approached
by Mario Santos, the neighbor's driver. While they were having a small
conversation, Mario saw Marina Angeles walking fast towards the back of the
house, holding a safety deposit box and a kitchen knife. Mario Santos told
the accused to follow Marina for according to another house helper, Marina
was acting differently in the past few days. The accused followed Marina
and was surprised to see her stabbed the victim, Gina. He tried to stop
Gina by grabbing her arm, but Marina stabbed Gina a second time. He was
also able to get the safety box from Marina but he lost grip and dropped
it. Sgt. Santiago walked into the scene, and upon seeing Gina on the
floor, he shouted for help. Sgt. Santiago drew his service firearm, aimed
it at them, grabbed a rope and tied their hands. The police arrived
shortly.
Mario Santos, the neighbor's driver also gave an affidavit
corroborating parts of the counter-affidavit of Tenorio Palparan.
In the affidavit of Dr. Bienvenido Torres, Medico-Legal Doctor at the
Philippine National Police Crime Laboratory in Camp Crame, he stated that
an evaluation of victim's body after the incident yielded the following
results:
1) The victim had two (2) penetrating stab wounds on the right side of
her chest; measuring 0.8 x 1.2 cm on the antero-medial portion on the
4th intercostal space, 3.4 cm from the sternal border and another
measuring 0.5 x 0.9 cm on the lung apex, immediately caudal to the
anterior third clavicle, causing a hairline fracture of the upper
boarder of the first rib;
2) The stab wounds resulted inpleural effusion and Hemothorax of the
right lung as per chest X-ray findings;
3) The patient is under critical condition, with mechanical
ventilation status post insertion of chest tube.
Marina Angeles waived her rights under Art. 125 of the Revised Penal
Code and after undergoing an inquest, a resolution was prepared and an
information was filed earlier. As to Tenorio Palparan, a preliminary
investigation was conducted.
Analyses/Findings and Recommendations
Article 249 and Article 6 of the Revised Penal Code specifically state
as follows:
"Art. 249. Homicide. — Any person who, not falling within the
provisions of Article 246, shall kill another without the
attendance of any of the circumstances enumerated in the next
preceding article, shall be deemed guilty of homicide and be
punished by reclusion temporal." (Italics supplied.)
"Art. 6 – Consummated, Frustrated & Attempted Felonies
Consummated felonies as well as those which are frustrated and
attempted are punishable.
A felony is consummated when all the elements necessary for its
execution and accomplishment are present; and it is frustrated
when the offender performs all the acts of execution which would
produce the felony as a consequence but which, nevertheless, do
not produce it by reason of causes independent of the will of
the perpetrator's xxx."(Italics supplied.)
In Adam vs. Court of Appeals and People of the Philippines[1], the
accused was held to be guilty of frustrated homicide. The Court held that
such crime was deemed to require the intent of the perpetrator to kill his
victim. In People vs. Fortich[2], it was held that the intent to kill being
an essential element of the offense of frustrated or attempted homicide,
said element must be proved by clear and convincing evidence. Indeed, the
nature of the weapon used for the attack and the direction at which it was
aimed unmistakably showed petitioner's intent to kill.[3]
As reiterated in the case of Cervantes vs. People of the
Philippines[4], what determines the presence of intent to kill is the
nature and the extent of the wound inflicted for it must be supported by
independent proof showing that the wound inflicted was sufficient to cause
the victim's death without timely medical intervention. The danger to life
of any wound is dependent upon a number of factors: the extent of the
injury; the form of the wound; the region of the body affected; the blood
vessels; nerves, or organs involved; the entrance of disease-producing
bacteria or other organisms into the wound; the age and constitution of the
person injured; and the opportunities for administering proper surgical
treatment.
In People vs. Raquinio[5], Appellant used a lethal weapon, a bolo. The
thrust — "sudden and unexpected" — was directed at a vital spot of the
body, the abdomen. Were it not for the fact that Agustin Raquinio held the
defendant fast and grabbed the bolo from his hand, he would have finished
off his victim. The wounds suffered by the latter would have been fatal,
were it not for the timely and adequate medical assistance rendered him.
Intention to kill, a mental process, may be inferred from the nature of the
weapon used, the place of the wound, the seriousness thereof, and the
persistence to kill the victim.
As in this case, the findings of the medico-legal clearly state the
probable fatality of such had it not been attended medically. The facts of
the case before us squarely fall under the crime of Frustrated Homicide.
The fatal wounds found in Gina's body were directly caused by the kitchen
knife (with a scratch and splattered with blood) which was plunged twice
into the right side of her chest .Sgt. Santiago reasonably believed that
the act of stabbing Gina was committed by Tenorio Palparan and respondent
Marina Angeles due to presence of the following circumstances:
(1) He heard Mang Tino's voice when he was three meters away from the
rear door;
(2) He heard Mang Tino utter the question "Bakit mo nagawang saksakin
si Gina?;"
(3) He saw blood all over the floor, Gina lying down and
trembling; (4) He saw the two accused covered in blood but nonetheless
unharmed.
The medico legal doctor tasked to evaluate the condition of the
victim, Gina del Rio, attested that due to the nature of the wounds, she
was placed in a critical condition. The stab wounds penetrated the victim's
lungs; causing blood and air to enter the same. The intensity of the wounds
would have resulted in the victim's death had it not been for timely
medical intervention.
The self-serving affidavit of the accused denying his participation in
the crime cannot be given more weight. In People v. Valentino[6], a murder
case, the court ruled that denials, if unsubstantiated by clear and
convincing evidence, are negative and self-serving which deserve no weight
in law and cannot be given greater evidentiary weight over the testimonies
of credible witness on affirmative matters. Moreover, in People v.
Benjamin Peteluna[7], the court again enunciated thatIt is a time-honored
principle that the positive identification of the appellant by a witness
destroys the defense of alibi and denial.
In People v. Rey Monticalvo y Magno[8], the court expressed that
denial is an inherently weak defense and has always been viewed upon with
disfavor by the courts due to the ease with which it can be concocted.
Denial as a defense crumbles in the light of positive identification of the
accused, as in this case. Verily, mere denial, unsubstantiated by clear and
convincing evidence, is negative self-serving evidence which cannot be
given greater evidentiary weight than the testimony of the complaining
witness who testified on affirmative matters. Like denial, alibi is not
looked upon with favor by the trial court. It also cannot prevail over
witnesses' positive identification of appellant as the perpetrator of the
crime.
In his affidavit, Mario Santos did not make any statement asserting
that Tenorio Palparan did not commit the crime. The statement he made over
Marina's different behaviour cannot be appreciated for it was not his
personal observation, hence, a mere heresay.
Obvious ungratefulness of the accused Tenorio Palparan was established
in the complaint for being a house help of the family. Jurisprudence has
established the 4 requisites for such circumstance to be held present in
certain situations,
(1) that the offended party had trusted the offender;
(2) that the offender abused such trust by committing a crime against
the offended party;
(3) that the act be committed with obvious ungratefulness and (4) the
ungratefulness be obvious, clear and manifest ingratitude on the part of
the accused.
It could be contemplated in this case that when Gina arrived, entering
the back door, she was unaware that such events would occur. As a house
help, the accused gained the trust of the family, so the succeeding act of
stabbing the victim that was allegedly done constitutes obvious
ungratefulness, personally to Gina, Manuel and Carla Del Rio.
Respondent MARINA ANGELES a.k.a. "Manang Maring" along with Tenorio
Palparan a.k.a. "Mang Tino", were both found at the garage by Sgt.
Santiago. Particularly, they were found to have blood all over their
clothes and were three (3) meters away from the body of the victim who was
still trembling and almost lifeless. Marina Angeles and Tenorio Palparan,
were soon tied by Sgt. Santiago, and were informed of their Miranda rights
prior to their detention and chose to remain silent.
In light of this, the Investigating Officer is convinced that the
warrantless arrest was made proper pursuant to the exception laid down in
Rule 113, Section 5 (b) of the Revised Rules of Court which states:
SEC. 5. Arrest without warrant; when lawful.—A peace officer or
a private person may, without a warrant, arrest a person:
x xx
(b) When an offense has just been committed and he has probable
cause to believe based on personal knowledge of facts or
circumstances that the person to be arrested has committed it;
and
x xx
The following facts and circumstances based on the personal knowledge
of the arresting officer show that there was probable cause to believe that
respondent Marina Angeles and Tenorio Palparan had just committed a crime,
viz.:
1. The presence of respondent Marina Angeles and TenorioPalparan at
the scene of the crime;
2. The fact that they both had blood all over their clothes;
3. Gina lying on the floor, still trembling from the wounds on her
chest; and
4. Palparan's statement which Sgt. Santiago overheard prior to
entering the rear door.
WHEREFORE, IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING, it is most respectfully
recommended that an information for the crime of Frustrated Homicide be
filed against the respondent MARINA ANGELES. A bail bond of P24,000.00 is
recommended
Quezon City, Manila.
PATRICIA ANN CRUZ
Assistant City Prosecutor
APPROVED BY:
RIKKI DANIELE LOUIS DE LA PAZ
Chief City Prosecutor
-----------------------
[1] G.R. No. 139830, November 21, 2002
[2]G.R. No. 80399-404. November 13, 1997
[3]People vs. Recto, G.R. No. 129069, October 17, 2001, p. 25
[4] G.R. No. 175023, July 5, 2010
[5]G.R. No. L-16488, August 12, 1966
[6] GR No. 91492, January 19, 1995
[7] GR no. 187048, January 23, 2013
[8] GR No. 193507, January 20, 2013
