People v. Bien
REITERATIONFacts
1. The Antecedents: The underlying dispute arose from an incident where the complainant, Go Sui Chiang, a concessionaire for a maritime fishing zone, discovered the defendant, Luis Bien, fishing within his licensed area. When Chiang confronted Bien and demanded he cease fishing, Bien allegedly threw Chiang into the water. Chiang, unable to swim, struggled to stay afloat until he could grab the side of his boat. While Bien's companions reportedly suggested submerging Chiang in deeper water, two other individuals, Camilo Bas and Victorino Bas, intervened upon hearing Chiang's cries for help, preventing Bien from striking Chiang with an oar and assisting Chiang to shore. 2. Procedural History: Following the incident on May 3, 1910, the provincial fiscal filed a complaint against Luis Bien on September 20, 1910, charging him with frustrated homicide. The trial court, presided over by Judge P. M. Moir, rendered a judgment on November 8, 1910, finding the defendant guilty and sentencing him to six years and one day of prision mayor and costs. The defendant subsequently appealed this conviction to the Supreme Court. 3. The Petition: This case comes before the Supreme Court on appeal from the judgment of the lower court. The appellant, Luis Bien, contests the conviction for frustrated homicide. The Supreme Court, in its review, considers the evidence presented, including the testimony of witnesses for both the prosecution and the defense. The Court must determine whether the actions of the appellant constituted attempted homicide, considering the victim's inability to swim and the intervention of third parties, and whether the lower court correctly applied the relevant penalties under the Penal Code, taking into account mitigating circumstances.
Issue(s)
Whether the acts of the accused constitute attempted homicide. Whether the penalty imposed by the trial court is appropriate.
Ruling
The Supreme Court modified the penalty. It affirmed the conviction for attempted homicide but reduced the penalty to two years of prision correccional, with the accessories of article 61 of the Penal Code, and ordered the defendant to pay the costs of both instances. The Court held that the crime committed was attempted homicide, not frustrated homicide, and applied the penalty in the minimum degree of prision correccional due to the presence of a generic mitigating circumstance.
Ratio Decidendi
On Issue 1: The Court held that the crime committed was attempted homicide. The Chinaman, Go Sui Chiang, was thrown into the water by the defendant, Luis Bien, despite not knowing how to swim, exposing him to the risk of asphyxia through submersion. The commission of the crime was directly commenced by overt acts. The death of the victim was not consummated solely because of the opportune intervention of two witnesses, Camilo Bas and Victorino Bas, who responded to the victim's cries for help and prevented the defendant from further harm, thereby saving him from drowning. The Court emphasized that the saving of the victim was not due to any voluntary or spontaneous desistance on the part of the aggressor, Luis Bien. Therefore, the elements of attempted homicide were met, as the intent to kill was evident, and the act was directly aimed at causing death, but was interrupted by external circumstances. On Issue 2: The Court found no aggravating circumstances in the commission of the crime. However, it gave due weight to the generic mitigating circumstance provided for in Article 11 of the Penal Code, considering the defendant's status as a native, the nature of the act committed, and his scant education. Consequently, the Court modified the penalty imposed by the trial court. Instead of prision mayor, it imposed the penalty of prision correccional in its minimum degree, along with the accessories provided by Article 61 of the Penal Code, and ordered the defendant to pay the costs of both instances. This adjustment reflects the Court's consideration of the mitigating factors in determining the appropriate penalty.
Main Doctrine
The crime of attempted homicide is established when the accused, through overt acts, directly commences the commission of the crime, and the death of the victim is prevented not by the accused's voluntary desistance but by external factors, such as the intervention of other individuals. The court also considered the generic mitigating circumstance of the accused being a native with scant education.