People v. Sy
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: On September 3, 1949, the defendant-appellant, Sy Pio, entered a store and fired a .45 caliber pistol, first shooting Jose Sy. When Tan Siong Kiap, who was present, asked what was happening, Sy Pio turned and shot Tan Siong Kiap in the right shoulder. Tan Siong Kiap hid and heard more gunshots before Sy Pio fled. Tan Siong Kiap was hospitalized for nine days and received further treatment, incurring P300 in expenses. The defendant-appellant also shot Ong Pian earlier that day. He was later apprehended in Tarlac, where he admitted to shooting Tan Siong Kiap, Ong Pian, and Jose Sy to Captain Daniel V. Lomotan of the Manila Police Department. The pistol used was confiscated. A written confession detailing the assaults and his motives (resentment over alleged theft of money and dismissal from employment) was taken and signed by the defendant-appellant. Procedural History: The Court of First Instance of Manila found Sy Pio guilty of frustrated murder and sentenced him accordingly. The case was appealed to the Court of Appeals, which certified it to the Supreme Court due to the connection with a murder charge. The Petition: The defendant-appellant claimed the trial court erred in finding him guilty of frustrated murder, arguing the shot to Tan Siong Kiap was accidental or part of the same shot fired at Jose Sy, that the evidence was insufficient, and that the indemnity awarded was improper. He also contended he should only be found guilty of less serious physical injuries.
Issue(s)
Whether the trial court erred in finding the defendant-appellant guilty of frustrated murder. Whether the shot that wounded Tan Siong Kiap was accidental or part of the same shot fired at Jose Sy. Whether the evidence was sufficient to sustain the judgment of conviction. Whether the indemnity of P350 awarded to the offended party was proper. Whether the defendant-appellant should be found guilty only of less serious physical injuries instead of frustrated murder.
Ruling
The Supreme Court modified the judgment, finding the defendant-appellant guilty of attempted murder instead of frustrated murder, and reduced the sentence. The indemnity and costs were affirmed.
Ratio Decidendi
On the conviction for frustrated murder: The Court held that while the intent to kill was evident from the act of firing directly at the body of the offended party, the crime committed was not frustrated murder because the subjective phase of the acts of execution had not been completed. The Court reasoned that the victim's ability to escape and hide, which the appellant must have seen, created reasonable doubt as to whether the appellant believed he had inflicted a fatal wound or performed all acts necessary to kill his victim. The appellant's subsequent flight further supported the conclusion that he did not believe he had completed all acts of execution. On whether the shot was accidental or part of the same shot fired at Jose Sy: The Court rejected this contention, citing the uncontradicted testimony of the offended party, Tan Siong Kiap. According to Tan Siong Kiap, after he was shot, he asked the defendant-appellant "What is the idea?" and the defendant-appellant, instead of answering, turned around and fired at him. This clearly indicated a separate and intentional act directed at Tan Siong Kiap. On the sufficiency of evidence: The Court found the evidence sufficient to sustain a conviction. This evidence included the victim's uncontradicted testimony, the verbal admissions made by the defendant-appellant to Captain Lomotan, his escape and subsequent apprehension in Tarlac, his possession of the .45 caliber pistol, the medical testimony confirming the wound was caused by a .45 caliber bullet, and his written confession, which he failed to successfully impugn. The Court noted that his admissions during trial regarding the incidents and motives coincided with his written confession, further validating it. On the propriety of the indemnity: The Court affirmed the indemnity of P350. The offended party testified to spending P300 for hospital and doctor's fees and being confined for nine days, with further treatments. These facts remained uncontradicted, supporting the award. On conviction for less serious physical injuries: The Court found that the intent to kill was conclusively proved, and the act of firing directly at the body demonstrated this intent. However, due to the doubt regarding the completion of the subjective phase of the acts of execution, the conviction was for attempted murder, not merely physical injuries.
Main Doctrine
The Court modified the conviction from frustrated murder to attempted murder, holding that for frustrated murder, the subjective phase of the acts of execution must have been completed, meaning the accused must have performed all acts believed by him to be sufficient to produce death, and that the accused's escape and subsequent flight, which he must have seen, created reasonable doubt as to whether he believed he had completed all acts of execution.