Title
Marasigan y De Guzman vs. Fuentes
Case
G.R. No. 201310
Decision Date
Jan 11, 2016
A 2006 assault involving multiple attackers, intent to kill, and intervention by neighbors led to Supreme Court reinstating attempted murder charges.

Case Summary (G.R. No. 201310)

Procedural Background

Marasigan contested several decisions from lower courts and the Department of Justice (DOJ). The DOJ's initial ruling, issued by Undersecretary Linda L. Malenab-Hornilla on September 2, 2009, favored Marasigan, directing the filing of attempted murder charges against the respondents. However, that decision was reversed on February 8, 2010, by Secretary Agnes VST Devanadera, who determined that only Robert Calilan could be charged with less serious physical injuries.

Allegations and Incident Details

On the night of the incident, while Marasigan was walking home, he was assaulted by Fuentes and others, including Calilan and Lindo. Fuentes allegedly threw an object at him, which led to a physical confrontation involving multiple assailants. Witnesses provided testimony confirming that the assault involved attempts to cause serious harm, including the use of a hollow block intended to strike Marasigan's head.

Initial Prosecutorial Findings

Assistant Provincial Prosecutor Christopher R. Serrano conducted a preliminary investigation and concluded that there was insufficient evidence to support a murder charge, instead recommending less serious physical injuries against Fuentes and Calilan, while clearing Lindo of any liability. Marasigan appealed this decision, arguing for attempted murder charges based on the severity of the assault and the evidence of conspiracy among the assailants.

DOJ’s Reversal and Legal Analysis

Undersecretary Malenab-Hornilla initially found enough grounds to charge the respondents with attempted murder, distinguishing the nature of their actions as indicative of a design to kill, which was interrupted due to witness intervention. However, Secretary Devanadera’s later ruling—upholding Serrano’s assessment—relied too heavily on the medico-legal findings without adequately considering the broader context of the incident and the testimonies supporting an intent to kill.

Court of Appeals Decision

The Court of Appeals dismissed Marasigan’s petition for certiorari, affirming Secretary Devanadera's resolution that concluded no sufficient evidence existed to charge the respondents with anything beyond less serious physical injuries, which prompted Marasigan to appeal to the Supreme Court.

Supreme Court Findings

The Supreme Court found that both Secretary Devanadera and Prosecutor Serrano had misunderstood the facts, particularly regarding the threshold for probable cause in attempted murder. The reasonings hinged on the fact that probable cause merely required a well-founded belief that a crime was committed, n

...continue reading

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur helps you analyze cases smarter to comprehend faster—building context before diving into full texts.