ABERRATIO ICTUS:

In Aberratio Ictus or mistake in the blow, it presupposes 3 persons present in the crime scene. They are the offender,
intended victim, and the innocent person who was injured by reason of the offender’s act committed by mistake. In
the case below, Guillen is the offender, President Roxas is the intended victim, and Varela, together with other
injured people, is the innocent person.

People v. Guillen

G. R. No. L-1477

January 18, 1950

FACTS:

 Guillen made the voluntary act of hurling a grenade at President Manual Roxas after his public speech. He had the intent of

killing the president for the latter’s failure of fulfilling his promises during the presidential election campaign.

 The grenade exploded in the middle of a group of persons who were standing close to the platform. It was found that the

fragments of the grenade had seriously injured Simeon Varela who died on the following day and caused serious physical

injuries to Alfredo Eva, Jose Fabio, Pedro Carrillo, and Emilio Maglalang.

 Guillen’s purpose was to kill the President, but that did not make any difference to him if there were some people around the

President when he hurled that bomb, because the killing of those who surrounded the President was tantamount to killing the

President. In other words, although it was not his main intention to kill the persons surrounding the President, he felt no

conjunction in killing them also in order to attain his main purpose of killing the President.

ISSUE:

1.) Did Guillen act with malice?

2.) Should Guillen be charged with homicide through reckless imprudence in regard to the death of Varela and in regard to other

victims who were injured because of his act?

RULING:

1.) Yes. The evidence for the prosecution, supported by the brazen statements made by the accused, shows that Guillen acted with

malice by carrying with him two hand grenades and putting into execution his preconceived plan to assassinate President Roxas at

the Plaza de Miranda on the night of March 10, 1947. Thus, he is liable for all the consequences of his wrongful act; for in

accordance with Art. 4 of the Revised Penal Code, criminal liability is incurred by any person committing felony (delito) although

the wrongful act done be different from that which he intended. In criminal negligence, the injury caused to another should be

unintentional, it being simply the incident of another act performed without malice.
2.) Two grave felonies were committed by the accused. Neither of these two has to do with reckless imprudence. [Felonies

committed: (1) murder of Varela; and (2) multiple attempted murder, of which President Roxas, Alfredo Eva, Jose Fabio, Pedro

Carrillo and Emilio Maglalang.] The court held that deliberate intent to do an unlawful act is essentially inconsistent with the idea

of reckless imprudence. In this case, it is obvious that the accused attempted to kill President Roxas by throwing a hand grenade at

him with the intention to kill him, thereby commencing the commission of a felony by over acts, but he did not succeed in

assassinating him "by reason of some cause or accident other than his own spontaneous desistance."