REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES

MUNICIPAL TRIAL COURT IN CITIES

Branch 7
Iloilo City

THE PEOPLE OF THE CRIMINAL CASE NO. 224-14

PHILIPPINES

-versus- FOR:

SUSAN PINEDA MACATUAL ATTEMPTED HOMICIDE

Accused (Art. 249, in Rel. to Art. 6 RPC)

x--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------x

PROSECUTOR’S MEMORAMDUM

Private Complainant, by counsel, respectfully submits its memorandum in the case:

The Case

This is an action filed against the accused Susan Pineda Macatual, who, armed with
hammer and saw, with intent to kill, and without any justifiable motive, did then and there
willfully, unlawfully and feloniously kick, grapple and strike Azucena Fuentes at the head, with
the said saw, with which the accused was provided at the time, thereby hitting and causing upon
her, lacerated wound and injuries on different parts of her body, thus, the accused has
commenced the commission of the crime of homicide, directly by overt act but did not perform
all the acts of execution which would have produced the crime of homicide by reason of some
cause or accident other than the spontaneous desistance of the accused.

The Facts

At around 8:30 in the morning of March 09, 2009, AZUCENA FUENTES (Fuentes) was
at the residence of her stepson, MELQUIADES TEODORO (Teodoro), a few meters away from
her own house, situated at Brgy. Lapuz Sur, Rizal, Lapaz, Iloilo City. She noticed someone in the
act of cutting the MIWD water meter connection servicing and connected to Teodoro’s house.
She prevented that person to stop cutting the aforementioned water meter connection informing
him that the same is owned by her stepson. He informed Fuentes that SUSAN MACATUAL
(Macatual) instructed him to cut and remove that water meter. He left the area when she ordered
him to stop. After a while, Macatual arrived, holding a hammer and a saw, looking angry. She
was shouting,demanding payment in the amount of Php 3,000.00 from Fuentes who refused
saying the water meter is owned by Teodoro. After an exchange of words, Fuentes turned her
back to avoid further confrontation. Macatual followed from behind and without warning, struck
Fuentes’ head with the saw she was carrying, injuring the back portion of the head and body,
several times. Fuentes had no opportunity to defend herself. Even if she fell to the ground,
Macatual pinned her to the ground, pulling her hair, with blood oozing from the back portion of
her head. That was the situation when Brgy. Captain Lebrilla arrived and with the assistance of
her Brgy. Tanods, they were separated.

At that juncture, Punong Barangay LigayaLebrilla, came to the rescue of Fuentes after
having been informed of the incident. She found Macatual pulling the hair of Fuentes who was
lying on the ground, face down. While approaching, she ordered the separation of the
protagonists since no one of the spectators made a move to do so, until she reached them and
took hold of Fuentes in the effort to separate her from the hold of Macatual. It was only when a
policeman arrived that Macatual released her hold on Fuentes. A blooded Azucena Fuentes
informed her of what happened and that pointed to Susan Macatual who struck her head with a
saw. She was then rushed to the WVSU Medical Center for treatment of her wounds. Other
policemen arrived with the daughter of Azucena Fuentes who requested that Susan Macatual be
arrested.

To support the complaint of Fuentes, her witnesses included Sotero S. Villaruz, a

carpenter/repair person hired by Teodoro to make repairs/renovations to his house. He witnessed
the whole incident alleging the same version of Fuentes.

To answer the complaint against her, Macatual responded with a counter-charge against
Fuentes, PunongBrgy. Lebrilla, Teodoro, Jocelyn Fuentes, Gina Ngo and Yolanda Aytona for
Attempted Homicide or Physical as well as Illegal Arrest. She alleged that she did not instigate
the fight, it was Fuentes who started it and that she was just defending herself. She brought the
hammer and saw for the purpose of removing the water meter, not to use them to pick a fight.
She was pushed by Fuentes, losing her balanced and was struck by stone. And Brgy. Capt.
Lebrilla, Teodoro, Jocelyn Fuentes, Gina Ngo and Yolanda Aytona joined in the fracas. The
counter affidavit she filed was dismissed by the fiscal for lack of merit.

The Medical Certificate presented by Fuentes revealed wounds described as follows:

“Lacerated wound left parietal area and soft tissue contusion left arm and posterior chest
secondary to alleged mauling.”

which is expected to heal within seven (7) days barring complications.

While the wound inflicted by a saw may appear superficial, the intent of the respondent
in striking her victim with it was to inflict more harm as to take away her life, the fact that she is
a lot bigger and stronger than the old victim. It can be inferred from the fact that after she was
disarmed of the saw, she continued to bodily inflict injuries when the victim was already down,
practically kissing the ground.

The Issues
1. Whether or not the defendant can invoke self-dense to justify her act?
2. Whether or not the accused is guilty of attempted homicide?

Arguments

I.
SUSAN MACATUAL’S CONTENTION OF SELF-DEFENSE IS WITHOUT MERIT

Well-entrenched is the rule that were the accused invokes self-defense, it is incumbent
upon him to prove a clear and convincing evidence that he indeed acted in defense of himself.
(People vs. Sazon, G.R. No. 89684, Sept. 18, 1990)
The plea of self-defense cannot be justifiably be entertained where it not only
uncorroborated by any separate competent evidence but in itself is extremely doubtful. (People
vs. Flores, L-24526, Feb. 29, 1972)

There are three requisites to prove the claim for self-defense as stated in paragraph 1 of
Article 11 of the Revised Penal Code, namely: (1) unlawful aggression; (2) reasonable means
employed to prevent or repel it; and (3) lack of sufficient provocation on the part of the person
defending himself.
 Unlawful aggression is equivalent to assault or at least threatened assault of an
immediate and imminent kind.(People vs. Alconga, 78 Phil. 366) There is unlawful aggression
when the peril to one’s life, limb or right is either actual or imminent. There must be actual
physical force or actual use of weapon.(People vs. Crisostomo, 108 SCRA 288)
Mere utterance of foul words does not constitute unlawful aggression. In the case at bar,
the allegation of the defendant that the complainant said the words, “Hoy, Susan, maanoka di?
Gaga ka,” cannot be considered as such. In PeoplevsLachica,132 SCRA 230, unlawful aggression
refers to an attack that has actually broken out or materialized or at the very least is clearly
imminent; it cannot consist in oral threats or a merely threatening stance or posture. In the
similar case of US vs.Carrero, 9 Phil. 544, insulting words addressed to the accused no matter
how objectionable they may have been without physical assault could not constitute unlawful
aggression.
Thus, the contention of the accused that she committed the act in self-defense cannot be
sustained. Unlawful aggression is an indispensable requisite of self defense which is absent in
the instant case. There can be no self-defense, complete or incomplete, unless the victim has
committed an unlawful aggression against the person defending himself. Due to this fact, the
accused cannot invoke the self-defense as justifying or mitigatingcircumstance (in case of
incomplete self-defense).

Reasonable means employed to prevent or repel it. This second requisite of self-defense
presupposes the existence of unlawful aggression, which is either imminent or actual. In the case
at bar, unlawful aggression is wanting. If there is no unlawful aggression, there is nothing to
prevent or repel. The second requisite of self-defense will have no basis.

Lack of sufficient provocation on the part of the person defending himself.The

provocation must be sufficient, which means that it should be proportionate to the act of
aggression and adequate to stir the aggressor to its commission. (People vs. Alconga, 78 Phil.
366)
Thus, to engage in a verbal argument cannot be considered sufficient provocation.
(Decision of the Supreme Court of Spain of October 5, 1877)
In the present case, there is no provocation at all on the part of the complainant.
According to witnesses’ accounts, it was SusanMacatual who started or provoked the fight. The
defendant’s allegation that Melquiades and complainant Fuentes attacked defendant Macatual
should not be given weight in the case at bar due to lack of evidence.

II.
SUSAN MACATUAL IS GUILTY OF THE CRIME OF ATTEMPTED HOMICIDE

Homicide is the unlawful killing of any person, which is neither parricide, murder, nor
infanticide.

Elements:

1. That person was killed

2. That the accused killed him without any justifying circumstance;
3. That the accused had intention to kill, which is presumed;
4. That the killing was not attended by any of the qualifying circumstances of
murder, or by that of parricide or infanticide.

That the person was killed.In the case at bar, the victim was not killed, thereby charging
the accused for attempted homicide.
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. (Art.6 RPC)
 As alleged in the information that the accused Susan Pineda Macatual, armed with
hammer and saw, with intent to kill, and without any justifiable motive, did then and there
willfully, unlawfully and feloniously kick, grapple and strike Azucena Fuentes at the head, with
the said saw, with which the accused was provided at the time, thereby hitting and causing upon
her, lacerated wound and injuries on different parts of her body, thus, the accused has
commenced the commission of the crime of homicide, directly by overt act but did not perform
all the acts of execution which would have produced the crime of homicide by reason of some
cause or accident other than the spontaneous desistance of the accused.

Accused-defendant Macatual failed to complete the commission of the felony only due to
the fact that Barangay Captain Lebrilla arrived at the scene and ordered the former to be stopped
and separated from Plaintiff-complainant Fuentes. However, she did not desist from inflicting
harm to Fuentes, it was only when a policeman arrived that Macatual released her hold on
Fuentes.

That the accused killed him without any justifying circumstance.The accused’s
contention of self-defense, which would supposedly justify her act, is without merit. The present
case doesn’t have any justifying circumstance.

That the accused had intention to kill, which is presumed.Despite the efforts of the
Brgy. Captain Lebrilla and the Tanods to stop Macatual from inflicting further wounds to
Fuentes, accused still resisted the constraints of the surrounding people. It was only then that she
stopped when a policeman arrived at the scene.

While the wound inflicted by a saw may appear superficial, the intent of the respondent
in striking her victim with it was to inflict more harm as to take away her life, the fact that she is
a lot bigger and stronger than the old victim. It can be inferred from the fact that after she was
disarmed of the saw, she continued to bodily inflict injuries when the victim was already down,
practically kissing the ground.

That the killing was not attended by any of the qualifying circumstances of murder, or
by that of parricide or infanticide.The victim in the instant case is not the father, mother, child
(whether legitimate or illegitimate), any of the ascendants, descendants, spouse of the accused,
nor a child below three days of age. Therefore there is no qualifying circumstance of parricide or
infanticide. The attending circumstances of murder are also absent in this case.

WHEREFORE, the complainant People of the Philippines respectfully prays the court to
render judgment:

1. Convicting the accused Susan Macatual for attempted homicide; and

2. Ordering the accused Susan Macatual to indemnify private complainant Azucena
Fuentes actual, moral and exemplary damages and attorney’s fees.

RESPECTFULLY PRAYED.
Iloilo City, October 5, 2014.

ATTY. CELSO G. LACSON JR.

Counsel for the Complainant
IBP No. 0609902019
Brgy. San Sebastian, Santa Barbara
Iloilo, Philippines
Email: redlaxon@gmail.com
Copy furnished:

Atty. Agnes S. Surmieda

Taft St., Santa Barbara, Iloilo