MANILA, Philippines — The Office of the City Prosecutor of Mandaluyong has indicted the driver in the hit-and-run incident for a frustrated homicide charge for running over and abandoning traffic enforcer Christian Floralde last June.
The prosecution, in a resolution dated June 29, has found probable cause to indict Jose Antonio Sanvicente of frustrated homicide, and dismissed the complaint of abandonment of person’s in danger and one’s own victim due to lack of probable cause.
Sanvicente has been indicted with the lesser degree of accused crime of frustrated homicide than the complaint filed by Floralde of frustrated murder.
The hit-and-run incident was filmed in a dashcam video that went viral. It showed Floralde was directing traffic along Julia Vargas Avenue and St. Francis Street when a white Toyota RAV4 struck him, and instead of stopping, ran over Floralde again after the guard dropped to his knees.
The driver was seen speeding away from the incident.
Floralde was rushed to the hospital where he was diagnosed to be suffering from internal bleeding and broken bones/ribs.
In his defense, Sanvicente told the prosecution that he intentionally hit the complainant. He also asserted that the confinement at the hospital “belies the charge of frustrated murder as there is no circumstantial or direct evidence to support such conclusion.”
Resolution
The prosecution noted that the Sanvicente did not stop or change direction while Floralde was pinned by his vehicle, nor did he check upon his victim, but instead sped away.
“Having established intent to kill, sufficient cause therefore exists to indict respondent for Frustrated Homicide,” the resolution made public on Thursday read.
But the prosecution noted that none of the qualifying circumstance for murder under Article 248—which include treachery, by inundation by means of motor vehicles, and with evident premeditation—may be appreciated in the case.
“While we do note that the crime may have been perpetrated with the use of a motor vehicle (Toyota RAV4), the same does not necessarily qualify the offense to murder,” it said.
The prosecution said the qualifying circumstance of “by means of motor vehicle” must have the accused purposely intending to commit a crime by using such means.
“Such scenario, however is utterly absent in the case at hand considering the present controversy commenced and escalated during a chance encounter after complainant placed himself in front of the respondent’s vehicle,” it said.