Marasigan v. Fuentes
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Petitioner Mark Reynald Marasigan alleged that on December 20, 2006, at around 3:00 a.m., while walking home, he was hit from behind by an object thrown by respondent Reginald Fuentes. Fuentes then reappeared with respondents Robert Calilan and Alain Delon Lindo, and an unidentified individual. Fuentes punched Marasigan, Calilan and Lindo also hit him, and their companion tried to stop them. Fuentes attempted to hit Marasigan's head with a stone (piece of hollow block), but Marasigan parried the blow with his hand, causing a fracture. Several other men from Fuentes' house joined the assault. Neighbors intervened, and the assault ceased upon the arrival of other neighbors. Procedural History: Marasigan filed a criminal complaint for frustrated murder. The Assistant Provincial Prosecutor found probable cause only for less serious physical injuries against Fuentes and Calilan, clearing Lindo. The Department of Justice (DOJ) Undersecretary partially granted Marasigan's Petition for Review, ordering the filing of informations for attempted murder against Fuentes, Calilan, and Lindo, faulting the prosecutor for relying solely on medico-legal findings. The DOJ Secretary reversed this, absolving Fuentes and Lindo and finding Calilan liable only for less serious physical injuries, citing lack of clear and convincing evidence of intent to kill. Marasigan filed a Petition for Certiorari with the Court of Appeals (CA), which dismissed his petition. The CA denied his motion for reconsideration. The Petition: Petitioner filed a Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court, praying for the reversal of the CA's decision and the reinstatement of the DOJ Undersecretary's resolution.
Issue(s)
Whether the Court of Appeals committed an error of judgment in affirming the DOJ Secretary's resolution, and whether the DOJ Secretary committed grave abuse of discretion in concluding that respondents should stand trial only for less serious physical injuries and absolving others. Whether there was sufficient basis for prosecuting respondents for attempted murder, considering the alleged conspiracy and intent to kill, and if so, whether the stage of the felony was attempted or frustrated. Whether there was sufficient evidence to establish the existence of a conspiracy among the respondents.
Ruling
The Supreme Court granted the Petition for Review on Certiorari, reversed and set aside the Court of Appeals' decision and resolution, and reinstated the September 2, 2009 Resolution of the Department of Justice Undersecretary. The Provincial Prosecutor of Laguna was directed to enforce the reinstated resolution with dispatch.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of the Court of Appeals' error of judgment and the DOJ Secretary's grave abuse of discretion: The Court held that while petitions for review on certiorari under Rule 45 generally involve questions of law and factual findings are binding, exceptions exist, including grave abuse of discretion and misapprehension of facts. The Court found that the DOJ Secretary committed a gross misapprehension of facts and grave abuse of discretion in concluding that respondent Calilan could only be prosecuted for less serious physical injuries and that respondents Fuentes and Lindo should not be prosecuted at all. The Court emphasized that the determination of probable cause requires a well-founded belief based on likelihood and common sense, not necessarily "clear and convincing evidence" or proof beyond reasonable doubt. The Secretary's reliance on medico-legal findings to the exclusion of other evidence was deemed erroneous. On the issue of prosecuting respondents for attempted murder, considering conspiracy and intent to kill, and if so, whether the stage of the felony was attempted or frustrated: The Court disagreed with the DOJ Secretary's conclusion that the evidence was equivocal regarding homicidal intent and that physical evidence starkly failed to demonstrate such motive. Citing Rivera v. People, the Court stated that superficial wounds do not negate liability for attempted murder, and the circumstances, including multiple assailants, efforts to hit the victim's head with stones or hollow blocks, and the victim's successful parrying of a blow causing a hand fracture, were similar to cases where attempted murder was found. The Court sustained the conclusion of the DOJ Undersecretary that there was a basis for prosecuting respondents for murder in its attempted stage, not frustrated stage. The Court defined the elements of an attempted felony, emphasizing that it occurs when the offender commences the commission of the felony directly by overt acts but does not perform all the acts of execution due to causes other than spontaneous desistance. In this case, the respondents performed overt acts, including coordinated assault and attempts to strike the petitioner's head with a hollow block. The failure to inflict fatal blows was due to the timely arrival of neighbors, not spontaneous desistance. Therefore, the elements of attempted murder were present. On the existence of conspiracy: The Court reiterated that conspiracy may be inferred from the acts of the perpetrators, pointing to a joint purpose and design. The acts of respondents Calilan and Lindo in restraining the petitioner while Fuentes attempted to strike him with a hollow block were indicative of a common design and conspiracy. The Court cited People v. Amodia and People v. Manalo, where holding a victim's hand while another stabbed them was considered sufficient proof of conspiracy. The Court concluded that all three respondents acted out of a common design, indicative of conspiracy.
Main Doctrine
The determination of probable cause requires a well-founded belief that a crime has been committed and that the respondent is probably guilty thereof, resting on common sense and likelihood rather than on certainty or clear and convincing evidence. Physical evidence, while important, should not be exclusively relied upon to the exclusion of other evidence, especially when the circumstances indicate a common design and intent to kill.