MARK REYNALD MARASIGAN Y DE GUZMAN, PETITIONER, VS. REGINALD FUENTES ALIAS “REGIE,” ROBERT CALILAN ALIAS “BOBBY,” AND ALAIN DELON LINDO, RESPONDENTS.

Marasigan versus Fuentes

The Case

This is a petition for review on certiorari brought by Mark Reynald Marasigan against Reginald Fuentes, Robert Calilan, and Alain Delon Lindo. Marasigan asks the Supreme Court to reverse the Court of Appeals and to reinstate the resolution of the Department of Justice Undersecretary that directed the filing of informations for attempted murder against all three respondents. The case matters because it fixes the standard of probable cause at the preliminary investigation stage, and because it shows how the Court weighs evidence of intent to kill, abuse of superior strength, and conspiracy in determining the proper stage of a felony.

Procedural History

Marasigan filed a criminal complaint for frustrated murder before the Office of the Provincial Prosecutor. After preliminary investigation, Assistant Provincial Prosecutor Serrano issued a resolution finding probable cause only for less serious physical injuries against Fuentes and Calilan, and clearing Lindo of any liability. Marasigan elevated the matter to the Department of Justice through a petition for review. Undersecretary Malenab-Hornilla partially granted the petition and directed the filing of informations for attempted murder against all three respondents. On the motion for reconsideration of the respondents, Secretary Devanadera reversed the Undersecretary, absolved Fuentes and Lindo, and found probable cause to charge Calilan only with less serious physical injuries. Marasigan then filed a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 before the Court of Appeals, which dismissed the petition and later denied his motion for reconsideration. Hence, he came to the Supreme Court by petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45.

Facts

In the early morning of December 20, 2006, Marasigan was walking home along Hebrew Street in Adelina I Subdivision, Barangay San Antonio, San Pedro, Laguna. After passing the house of Fuentes, where merrymaking had been going on, he felt an object thrown at him from behind. He turned and saw Fuentes, who disappeared upon being seen. A witness, Jefferson Pablo, confirmed to Marasigan that it was Fuentes who threw the object.

While they were speaking, Fuentes reappeared with Calilan, Lindo, and another unidentified individual. Fuentes punched Marasigan on the face, causing his nose to bleed. Calilan and Lindo also hit him. Fuentes then picked up a piece of hollow block and tried to hit Marasigan on the head; Marasigan parried it with his hand, which fractured. Fuentes picked up the stone again, and Lindo and Calilan held each of Marasigan's arms. More men from Fuentes' home joined the assault.

Marasigan shouted for help. Gregoria Pablo tried to pacify the assailants but was pushed and fell. The assault stopped only when neighbors Marcelo Maaba and Lauro Agulto arrived, and the assailants fled. Marasigan underwent medico-legal and x-ray examinations and filed complaints in the barangay hall and police station. The medical findings showed contusions, abrasions, and a fracture of the metacarpal bone of his right hand, with a healing period of less than thirty days.

Issues

• Whether or not the Court of Appeals erred in upholding the finding of Secretary Devanadera that the respondents should be charged only with less serious physical injuries, or not at all.
• Whether or not there is probable cause to prosecute the respondents for murder in its attempted stage, considering the evidence of intent to kill, abuse of superior strength, and conspiracy.

Applicable Provisions

Article 6 of the Revised Penal Code provides:

ARTICLE 6. Consummated, Frustrated, and 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. There is an attempt when the offender commences the commission of a felony directly by overt acts, and does not perform all the acts of execution which should produce the felony by reason of some cause or accident other than his own spontaneous desistance.

This provision governs the stage of the felony and supplies the test for distinguishing an attempted from a frustrated felony, which is the very question in this case.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court held that Secretary Devanadera committed grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction. The Court found a gross misapprehension of facts on the part of the Assistant Provincial Prosecutor and the Secretary. It stressed that a preliminary investigation inquires only into probable cause, which rests on likelihood rather than certainty. The Court quoted with approval the standard that probable cause "does not require an inquiry into whether there is sufficient evidence to procure a conviction. It is enough that it is believed that the act or omission complained of constitutes the offense charged." The Secretary erred in demanding clear and convincing evidence of a collective intent to kill.

On the second issue, the Court held that there was ample basis to prosecute the respondents for attempted murder. The fact that Marasigan's wounds were not fatal did not negate homicidal intent, since he parried a blow aimed at his head. The Court found that the respondents took advantage of their superior strength, and that they acted in conspiracy, as shown by Calilan and Lindo holding Marasigan's arms while Fuentes was about to strike him with a hollow block. The Court applied the elements of an attempted felony and concluded that the respondents commenced the commission of murder by overt acts but did not perform all the acts of execution because of the timely arrival of neighbors, a cause other than their own spontaneous desistance.

Doctrine

A preliminary investigation determines only the existence of probable cause, which is based on opinion, reasonable belief, and common sense, and does not require clear and convincing evidence or proof beyond reasonable doubt. Intent to kill may be inferred from the acts of the assailants, and the non-fatal character of the wounds does not negate such intent. Abuse of superior strength and conspiracy may be appreciated from the mode and manner of the attack, and a felony is only in the attempted stage when the offender commences the commission directly by overt acts but fails to perform all the acts of execution by reason of a cause other than his own spontaneous desistance, as provided in Article 6 of the Revised Penal Code.

Disposition

The petition was granted; the Court of Appeals decision and resolution were reversed and set aside, and the resolution of Undersecretary Malenab-Hornilla directing the filing of informations for attempted murder against all three respondents was reinstated, with the Provincial Prosecutor of Laguna directed to enforce it with dispatch.

Remember This

Probable cause for filing a criminal information needs only a well-founded belief that a crime has been committed and that the respondent is probably guilty, not clear and convincing evidence. Examiners use this case to test the distinction between attempted and frustrated felonies and the appreciation of conspiracy and superior strength at the preliminary investigation stage.