Boco, Pierre Jedd D.

1H

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 Manilas 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 prosecutions evidence shows:

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.
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 doctors fees.
Sy Pio shot two other people that day Ong Pian and Jose Sy before shooting and wounding Tan Siong
Kiap.
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 Pios declaration:
Some months prior to the incident, he was employed as an attendant in a restaurant owned by Ong Pian. Sy
Pios wife, Vicenta, was also employed by On Pians partner, Eng Cheng Suy. When Sy Pio tried to borrow
money from Ong Pian for Vicentas 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.
Ong Pian presented a list of Sy Pios debts, which was deducted from Vicentas monthly salary. Sy Pio
could not remember incurring such debts, and so he resented Ong Pians conduct.
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. Thereafter, Sy Pio overheard
Boco, Pierre Jedd D.
1H

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.
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 Pians 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 mothers 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 Pios 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 Sys murder.
The court found no merit in this contention. Tan Siong Kiaps 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 Kiaps uncontradicted testimony; Sy Pios
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 Kiaps 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
Kiaps vital organs. Additionally, Tan Siong Kiaps physicians 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
Boco, Pierre Jedd D.
1H

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 Pios 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 offenders 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.