Title
People vs Lim San
Case
G.R. No. L-5335
Decision Date
Nov 8, 1910
Lim San attacked Keng Kin at night with a bolo, inflicting severe wounds. Despite alibi claims, witnesses identified Lim San. The Supreme Court ruled it as frustrated murder, not attempted murder, based on the facts, not the charge's caption.

Case Summary (G.R. No. L-5335)

Case Background

Lim San was convicted of the crime of attempted murder and sentenced to seven years of presidio mayor and to pay one-third of the trial costs. The offense occurred on October 18, 1908, when Lim San allegedly assaulted Keng Kin with a bolo, inflicting several wounds that could have been fatal had it not been for prompt medical assistance. The prosecution provided witnesses who testified that Lim San attacked Keng Kin without any provocation.

Evidence and Testimony

Evidence presented by the prosecution included the testimonies of Keng Kin, Chua Hung, and Gregorio Mariano, who recounted the attack. They confirmed that Keng Kin was distracted by his dog, thus making him unprepared for the assault. Each witness identified Lim San as the perpetrator. The defense presented an alibi, which was contradicted by prosecution witnesses. The trial court determined that the prosecution’s witnesses were more credible than the accused’s.

Court's Findings on Credibility

The trial court observed the demeanor and credibility of the witnesses, ultimately choosing to rely on the prosecution’s testimonies, which presented no inherent improbabilities or credibility issues. It acknowledged that the assault occurred in darkness and took advantage of the victim’s unpreparedness, indicating that the method of attack was malicious and treacherous.

Classification of the Crime

The ruling originally categorized the crime as attempted murder; however, upon review, the court found it more accurately classified as frustrated murder. The distinction rests on the fact that in frustrated murder, the accused believes they have completed all necessary acts to consummate the crime, whereas, in attempted murder, the accused desists involuntarily from completion due to factors beyond their control.

Legal Significance of the Charges

The court examined the information provided by the prosecuting attorney, noting a typographical inconsistency between the caption designating the crime as “attempted assassination” and the factual allegations describing frustrated assassination. It held that the facts elicited during the trial would determine the nature of the crime, affirming that the characterization in the caption did not overshadow the body of the pleading.

The Nature of Criminal Allegations

The judgment emphasized that the essence of criminal actions lies in factual disputes, not semantic contradictions. The court asserted that technical designations do not comprise essential rights for defendants. Under the relevant statutes, an accused’s defense should focus on the facts presented rather than the labels assigned to those facts.

Sentencing and Penalty

Under Article 407 of the

...continue reading

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur helps you analyze cases smarter to comprehend faster—building context before diving into full texts.