THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs.

SY PIO

G.R. NO. L-5848 APRIL 30, 1954

FACTS:

 Note: This is an appeal of the Court of First Instance of Manila ’s judgement finding Sy Pio guilty of frustrated
murder against Tan Siong Kiap, and sentencing him to suffer an indeterminate sentence of 6 years, 1 month, and
11 days of prision mayor , to 14 years, 8 months, and 1 day of reclusion temporal , to indemnify Tan Siong Kiap
in the sum of P350, without subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency, and to pay the costs. Sy Pio shot
three people on September 3, 1949.
 The prosecution’s evidence shows:
o September 3, 1949, early morning, Sy Pio entered a store at 511 Misericordia, Sta Cruz, Manila and
started firing with a .45 caliber pistol. First to be shot was Jose Sy. Tan Siong Kiap, who saw Sy Pio enter
and fire at Jose Sy, asked, “What is the idea?” Sy Pio then turned around and fired at him as well. Tan
was shot in his right shoulder and then ran to a room behind the store to hide. Tan heard a few more
gunshots before Sy Pio ran away.
o Tan Sion Kiap was brought to the Chinese General Hospital, where his wound was treated from
September 3 to 12. Tan was requested to return for further treatment, and in a span of 10 days and
after five visits, his wound was completely healed. He spent P300 for hospital and doctor’s fees.
o Sy Pio shot two other people that day – Ong Pian and Jose Sy – before shooting and wounding Tan
Siong Kiap.
o September 5, the Manila Police Department received information that Sy Pio was in custody of the
Constabulary in Tarlac, so Captain Daniel V. Lomotan of the Manila police proceeded there. The two had
a conversation and Sy Pio admitted to shooting Tan Siong Kiap, Ong Pian, and Jose Sy. The Constabulary
in Tarlac delivered to Lomotan the pistol Sy Pio had used, which the Constabulary had confiscated
beforehand. Lomotan then brought Sy Pio to Manila, where his statement – detailing the assaults
against Tan, Ong Pian, and Jose Sy – was taken down in writing.
 Sy Pio’s declaration:
o Some months prior to the incident, he was employed as an attendant in a restaurant owned by Ong
Pian. SyPio’s wife, Vicenta, was also employed by On Pian’s partner , Eng Cheng Suy. When Sy Pio tried
to borrow money from Ong Pian for Vicenta’s sick father, Ong Pian could only lend him P1. Vicenta was
able to borrow P20 from her employer. Afterwards, Sy Pio was dismissed from his work and became a
peddler.
o Ong Pian presented a list of Sy Pio’s debts, which was deducted from Vicenta’s monthly salary. Sy Pio
could not remember incurring such debts, and so he resented Ong Pian’s conduct.
o A few months before September 3, Sy Pio was able to realize the sum of P70 from peddling medicine,
and he kept the money in his room. The following morning, Sy Pio found that the money was gone. Tan
Siong Kiap and Jose Sy told Sy Pio that he must have given the money to his wife.
o Thereafter, Sy Pio overheard hear Tan Siong Kiap and Jose Sy say that Sy Pio had actually lost the money
gambling. Because of these accusations against him, Sy Pio nurtured resentment against the two.
o September 3, early morning, while Ngo Cho, a Chinaman and the owner of a caliber .45 pistol, was away
from his room, Sy Pio took the gun and tucked it in his belt. Sy Pio proceeded to Ong Pian’s restaurant in
Ongpin and shot him. Afterwards, Sy Pio went to the store in Misericordia, Sta Cruz, Manila and shot
Jose Sy and Tan Siong Kiap. From there, he went to his mother ’s house in Malabon and told her that he
had killed two people.
 Sy Pio disowned the confession and explained that he signed it without having read its contents during the trial,
however.
 Sy Pio alleged that he did not shoot the three men, but that Chua Tone – with whom he had previously
connived to kill the three – did. Sy Pio did not introduce any witnesses to support his denial. Neither did he deny
 that he admitted before Captain Lomotan having killed the three persons, or having been found in possession of
the caliber .45 pistol.
 The trial court refused to believed his testimony and found him guilty of the crime charged.

On appeal, Sy Pio’s contentions:

1. The trial court erred in not finding that Tan Siong Kiap received the shot accidentally from the same bullet that had
been fired at Jose Sy (TF?) and in finding that Sy Pio had committed a crime separate from that of Jose Sy’s murder. The
court found no merit in this contention. Tan Siong Kiap’s testimony – that Sy Pio turned around and fired at him instead
of answering when he asked why Sy Pio was shooting – was uncontradicted by Sy Pio.

2. The evidence is not sufficient to sustain the judgment of conviction. The court found no merit in this contention.
Against Tan Siong Kiap’s uncontradicted testimony; Sy Pio’s admissions before Captain Lomotan in Tarlac; and Sy Pio
possession of the .45 caliber pistol, plus testimony of the physician who examined and treated Tan Siong Kiap ’s wounds,
matching his wounds to the caliber .45 bullet, Sy Pio “has only made a very unbelievable story.”

3. Sy Pio should be found guilty only of less serious physical injuries instead of frustrated murder. While intent to kill was
proven, the wound inflicted was not fatal because it did not touch any of Tan Siong Kiap’s vital organs. Additionally, Tan
Siong Kiap’s physician’s medical certification stated that the wound was to heal within a period of fourteen days.

ISSUE:

Whether or not Sy Pio can be convicted of frustrated murder. (Did he perform all the acts of execution necessary to
produce the death of his victim?)

RULING:

The court had previously held (U.S. vs. Eduave, People vs. Dagman, and People vs. Borinaga) that it is not necessary that
the accused actually commit all the acts of execution necessary to produce the death of his victim, that it is sufficient
that he believes that he has committed all said acts. In these cases, the court held that the crimes committed were
frustrated murder, because 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.

In the case at bar, Sy Pio fired at Tan Siong Kiap, and the latter was hit, but was able to escape and hide in another room.
Sy Pio must have seen that Tan Siong Kiap was able to escape; Sy Pio knew that he had not performed all the acts of
execution necessary to kill his victim. It cannot be said that the subjective phase had been completed. But because Sy
Pio ran away after the incident, there was reasonable doubt in the court that Sy Pio may have actually believed that he
had committed all the acts of execution. This doubt must be resolved in Sy Pio’s favor.

Sy Pio was found guilty of attempted murder.

ART. 6. Consummated, frustrated, and attempted felonies. A felony is […] frustrated when the offender performs all the
acts of execution which would produce the felony as a consequence but which, nevertheless, do not produce it by
reason of causes independent of the will of the perpetrator. There is an attempt when the offender commences the
commission of a felony directly or over acts, and does not perform all the acts of execution which should produce the
felony by reason of some cause or accident other than this own spontaneous desistance.

The Stages of Acts of Execution:

1. Attempted;

2. Frustrated; and

3. Consummated
Elements of Attempted Felony:

1. The offender commences the commission of the felony directly by overt acts;

2. He does not perform all the acts of execution which should produce the felony;

3. The offender’s act is not stopped by his own spontaneous desistance ;

4. The non-performance of all acts of execution was due to cause or accident other than his spontaneous desistance.

In attempted felony, the offender never passes the subjective phase of the offense – the portion of the acts
constituting the crime. If the offender is stopped by any cause outside of his own voluntary desistance, the subjective
phase has not been passed and it is an attempt.

Elements of Frustrated Felony:

1. The offended performs all the acts of execution;

2. All the acts performed would produce the felony as a consequence;

3. But the felony is not produced ;

4. By reason of causes independent of the will of the perpetrator .