Case Summary (G.R. No. L-5848)
Charges, Court Proceedings, and Applicable Law
Sy Pio was charged with frustrated murder for shooting Tan Siong Kiap and was initially convicted by the Court of First Instance of Manila, which imposed an indeterminate sentence under the Penal Code provisions effective at that time. The case was appealed to the Court of Appeals, which then certified it to the Supreme Court under Republic Act No. 296 on the ground that the offense occurred in connection with other criminal acts for which the defendant was also charged. The decision is based on the Constitution applicable prior to the 1987 enactment, reflecting the legal framework at the time.
Summary of the Crime and Evidence
On September 3, 1949, defendant Sy Pio entered a store armed with a .45 caliber pistol and fired shots. The first victim was Jose Sy. When Tan Siong Kiap confronted Sy Pio about the shooting, Sy Pio fired at him as well, inflicting a bullet wound to his right shoulder that passed through the back. Tan Siong Kiap immediately sought refuge but heard continued gunfire before Sy Pio fled. Tan Siong Kiap was hospitalized for nine days and continued to receive medical treatment thereafter, incurring hospital and medical expenses totaling P300.
Moreover, Sy Pio had previously shot Ong Pian and Jose Sy earlier the same morning. Following the incident, Sy Pio fled but was apprehended in Tarlac by police authorities. In custody, he verbally admitted to the shootings, and the gun used was confiscated. His written confession, signed with both his Chinese and Filipino names, provided a detailed account of the motives and events leading to the shootings, admitting resentment due to alleged financial disputes and accusations related to missing money.
Defendant’s Disavowal and Trial Testimony
At trial, Sy Pio disowned the written confession and claimed that another individual named Chua Tone was responsible for the shootings. He introduced no evidence to support his claim. Despite his denials, his cross-examination revealed admissions consistent with the confession’s core facts, including the motive for resentment against the victims.
Issues on Appeal: Shot Fired at Victim and Evidence Sufficiency
The appellant contended that the shot injuring Tan Siong Kiap was accidental, fired at Jose Sy, and that the offenses should be considered a single crime rather than separate crimes. The Supreme Court rejected these assertions based on the direct testimony of the victim who confirmed the defendant fired at him intentionally after being confronted.
The Court found the prosecution's evidence compelling, relying on multiple sources: the victim's uncontested testimony, admissions made to law enforcement, the recovered firearm matching the ballistic evidence, medical reports confirming the wound was consistent with the type of bullet discharged, and the defendant's own written confession. The Court found the defendant’s alternate claim to be unconvincing and unsupported.
Assessment of the Crime: Frustrated Murder vs. Attempted Murder
A key legal question was whether Sy Pio committed frustrated murder or attempted murder. Under prevailing jurisprudence, frustrated murder requires that the accused perform all the acts of execution necessary to cause the victim’s death, or at least believe that such acts were completed.
In Sy Pio’s case, although intent to kill was clear from his actions and confession, the Court emphasized that the victim survived without fatal injuries and escaped the immediate area after being shot. The defendant did not continue to pursue the victim and fled the scene, suggesting he did not complete all acts or hold the subjective belief that he had caused death.
The Court referenced established precedents where frustrated murder was found despite absence of actual fatal harm, hinging on the accused’s subjective belief of having completed the killing acts. Here, the evidence
...continue readingCase Syllabus (G.R. No. L-5848)
Case Background and Procedural History
- The case involves the defendant-appellant Sy Pio, also known as Policarpio de la Cruz, charged with frustrated murder for shooting Tan Siong Kiap.
- The Court of First Instance of Manila convicted the defendant-appellant and sentenced him to an indeterminate penalty comprising 6 years, 1 month, and 11 days of prision mayor to 14 years, 8 months, and 1 day of reclusion temporal.
- The judgment included indemnification of P350 to the offended party and costs without subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency.
- The Court of Appeals initially took the case but later certified it to the Supreme Court under section 17(4) of Republic Act No. 296 due to the crime being committed on the same occasion as another charge of murder also filed against the defendant-appellant.
Facts of the Case
- On the morning of September 3, 1949, the defendant-appellant entered a store located at 511 Misericordia, Sta. Cruz, Manila, and began firing a .45 caliber pistol.
- The first shot was fired at Jose Sy. Tan Siong Kiap, present in the store, confronted the defendant-appellant by questioning his actions, which prompted the defendant-appellant to turn and fire at him.
- Tan Siong Kiap sustained a bullet wound entering his right shoulder and exiting through the back.
- Upon injury, Tan fled to hide behind the store but continued to hear gunshots; the defendant-appellant eventually fled.
- Tan was hospitalized for treatment at Chinese General Hospital from September 3 to September 12, 1949, and continued with follow-up treatments after his release.
- The defendant-appellant had also shot two other persons, Ong Pian and Jose Sy, earlier on the same day.
- On September 5, the defendant-appellant was found in custody by the Constabulary in Tarlac and was turned over to Manila police.
- He admitted to shooting Tan Siong Kiap, Ong Pian, and Jose Sy.
- The .45 caliber pistol and magazine used in the shooting were recovered from the defendant-appellant by the Constabulary.
Defendant-Appellant’s Confession and Denial
- The defendant-appellant originally gave a detailed written confession, acknowledging his involvement in shooting the three victims.
- His confession included a background explaining his employment, resentment over financial disputes and accusations involving his wife’s family.
- He admitted to harboring resentment against the victims due to disputes over money he allegedly lost or owed.
- However, at trial, the defendant-appellant disowned the confession, claiming he had not read it before signing and asserting that another person na