by Tristan

PEOPLE v. CIRILO MAGALONA Y ONOON, GR No. 143294, 2003-07-17

Facts:

On May 25, 1994,... while the spouses Arimbuyutan and their children, namely, Rommel, Rosendo, Jr., Rosalie, Rosemarie, Regina, Ruby, Roldan and Resty, were sleeping in their hut, there was an explosion beneath the floor. Said explosion killed Resty and injured

Rosario, Roldan, Rosemarie and Rosalie.

based on the sworn statements of Rosendo Arimbuyutan, Sr., Bienvenido Sabater and Adelina Mendoza, the suspect was appellant Cirilo Magalona alias William.

While he was taking coffee, Sabater saw a person, named William, pass by in front of his hut and the hut of Rosendo Arimbuyutan, Sr. He also saw William hiding behind the acacia tree in front of his hut, which was about five (5) to six (6) meters away. Said acacia tree was... between his hut and the hut of Arimbuyutan. Then he saw an explosion under the floor of the hut of Arimbuyutan and saw William running towards the direction of the "flood control. "

Adelina Mendoza... testified that... appellant knocked at her door and conversed with her. He told her that he was... very angry at Rosendo Arimbuyutan, Sr. and that he would return and kill him.

The trial court held that the testimony of Avelina Mendoza showed that appellant had a motive to harm complainant Rosendo Arimbuyutan, Sr.

It also ruled that the testimony of Bienvenido Sabater established that appellant was responsible for the... explosion

Issues:

Whether or not the court erred in convicting Magalona.

THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN CONVICTING THE ACCUSED CIRILO MAGALONA.

Ruling:

the trial court correctly found appellant guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime charged.

is hereby AFFIRMED

Even if appellant, in detonating a hand grenade under the hut of Rosendo Arimbuyutan, Sr., intended to kill Rosendo, but instead killed his son, Resty, and seriously injured other family members, appellant is liable for all the consequences of his unlawful act. Where such... unlawful act is wilfully done, a mistake in the identity of the intended victim cannot be considered as reckless imprudence.[74]

Where malice or intention to cause injury exists, the act should be qualified by the felony it has produced.

WHEREFORE, the decision of the Regional Trial Court

Principles:

Where such... unlawful act is wilfully done, a mistake in the identity of the intended victim cannot be considered as reckless imprudence.[74]

Where malice or intention to cause injury exists, the act should be qualified by the felony it has produced.

Digests created by other users