People vs Sy Pio

April 30, 1954 | Labrador, J. | Criminal | Stages of Commission - Specific Felonies (Murder)

PETITIONER: PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES

RESPONDENT: SY PIO, alias POLICARPIO DE LA CRUZ
SUMMARY: Sy Pio was convicted of frustrated murder by the trial court for his shooting of the victim Tan Siong Kiap. What
happened was that he entered Tan Siong Kiap’s store one morning and shot one Jose Sy, after which he proceeded to shoot Tan
Siong Kiap. TSK managed to escape and get himself treated at a hospital, hence he survived. The Supreme Court ultimately held
that Sy Pio was only guilty of attempted murder and not frustrated murder, because he did not perform all the acts of execution,
actual and subjective, in order that the purpose and intention that he had to kill his victim might be carried out. The fact that his
victim was able to run away and that accused had seen him do so without giving chase or attempting to kill him again shows that the
subjective phase of the acts of execution had not been completed.

DOCTRINE:

It is not necessary that the accused actually commit all the acts of execution necessary to produce the death of his victim, but that it
is sufficient that he believes that he has committed all said acts. For the crime of frustrated murder, it must be shown that the
subjective phase of the acts necessary to commit the offense had already passed; and that there was full and complete belief on the
part of the assailant that he had committed all the acts of execution necessary to produce the death of the intended victim.

FACTS: shooting him, he proceeded to 511 Misericordia, in store

1. Eearly in the morning of September 3, 1949, the defendant-
appellant entered the store at 511 Misericordia, Sta Cruz,
Manila.
2. Once inside he started firing a .45 caliber pistol that he had
in his hand. The first one shot was Jose Sy.
3. Tan Siong Kiap, who was in the store and saw the accused
enter and afterwards fire a shot at Jose Sy, asked the
defendant-appellant, "What is the idea?" Thereupon
defendant-appellant turned around and fired at him also.
4. The bullet fired from defendant-appellant's pistol entered
the right shoulder of Tan Siong Kiap and he immediately
ran to a room behind the store to hide. From there he still
heard gunshot fired from defendant-appellant's pistol, but
afterwards defendant-appellant ran away.
5. Tan Siong Kiap was brought to the Chinese General
Hospital, where his wound was treated. He made a
complete recovery.
6. Once in the custody of the police, accused Sy Pio allegedly
executed a written declaration that he had shot at 3 people
in the store: Jose Sy, Ong Pian, and Tan Siong Kiap.
1. According to this confession, the reason why he
shot Ong Pian is because he felt resentment
towards him for not lending him money for his
wife’s family’s medical expenses and for firing
him from work. Sy’s wife also worked for Ong
Pian and she borrowed P20 from him; it was
from her salary that Ong Pian deducted her debts.
2. As for Jose Sy and Tan Siong Kian, Sy Pio
resented them for accusing him of stealing
money from them.
7. So early in the morning of September 3, while a Chinaman
by the name of Ngo Cho, who the possessor of a caliber .45
pistol, was away from his room, defendant-appellant got his
pistol and tucked it in his belt. With this pistol he went to the
restaurant at 822 Ongpin, and there shot Ong Pian. After
where Jose Sy and Tan Siong Kiap were, and there he fired at
them.
RTC: CONVICTED Sy Pio of FRUSTRATED MURDER.
- Disbelieved his denial of the allegations in the written
confession
ISSUE/S:
1. W/N defendant-appellant is guilty of frustrated murder
— NO. HE IS GUILTY ONLY OF ATTEMPTED
MURDER. He did not perform all the acts of execution,
actual and subjective, in order that the purpose and
intention that he had to kill his victim might be carried
out.
RATIO:
• The intent to kill is evident from his conduct in firing the
shot directly at the body of the offended party.
• But while intent to kill is conclusively proved the wound
inflicted was not necessarily fatal, because it did not touch
any of the vital organs of the body.
• As a matter of fact, the medical certification issued
by the physician who examined the wound of the
offended party at the time he went to the hospital,
states that the wound was to heal within a period of
fourteen days, and the victim Tan Siong Kiap made a
full recovery.
• Did the defendant-appellant perform all the acts of
execution necessary to produce the death of his victim?
• It is not necessary that the accused actually commit all the
acts of execution necessary to produce the death of his
victim, but that it is sufficient that he believes that he has
committed all said acts.
• In certain cases cited by the Court, the crime
committed was that of frustrated murder, because the
subjective phase of the acts necessary to commit the
 offense had already passed; there was full and
complete belief on the part of the assailant that he
had committed all the acts of execution necessary to
produce the death of the intended victim.
• Thus it is necessary for murder to be frustrated that
the assailant BELIEVES he had committed all acts
necessary to kill the victim.
• IN THIS CASE HOWEVER, the defendant-appellant fired
at his victim, and the latter was hit, but he was able to
escape and hide in another room. Thus, Sy Pio SHOULD
HAVE KNOWN that he had NOT EXECUTED ALL
ACTS NECESSARY TO KILL THE VICTIM.
• The fact that he was able to escape, which appellant
must have seen, must have produced in the mind of
the defendant-appellant that he was not able to his
his victim at a vital part of the body.
• Under these circumstances, it can not be said that the
subjective phase of the acts of execution had been
completed.
• And as it does not appear that the defendant-
appellant continued in the pursuit, and as a matter of
fact, he ran away afterwards a reasonable doubt exist
in our mind that the defendant-appellant had actually
believed that he has committed all the acts of
execution or passed the subjective phase of the said
acts. This doubt must be resolved in favor of the
defendant-appellant.