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 the
TENORIO PALPARAN, Revised Penal Code)
Respondent.
x-------------------------------------------x

RESOLUTION

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.
Fortich2, 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. Raquinio5, 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
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
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 Peteluna7, 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 Magno8, 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.

6
GR No. 91492, January 19, 1995
7
GR no. 187048, January 23, 2013
8
GR No. 193507, January 20, 2013
 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