People v.

Sy Pio
G.R. No. L-5848, April 30, 2018

FACTS

This is an appeal from a judgment of the CFI of Manila finding defendant-appellant, Sy

Pio, guilty of frustrated murder against the person of Tan Siong Kiap, and sentencing him to
suffer an indeterminate sentence of 6 years, 1 month, 11 days of prision mayor to 14 years, 8
months, and 1 day of reclusion temporal, to indemnify the offended party Tan Siong Ka[ in
the sum of Php 350.

In the morning of Sept. 3, 1949, Sy Pio shot 3 people namely, Tan Siong Kiap, Ong Pian,
and Jose Sy. Sy Pio entered the store at Sta. Cruz Manila and started firing a .45 caliber pistol.
Jose Sy was shot first. Upon seeing Sy Pio fire at Jose Sy, Tan who was also in the store, asked Sy
Pio “what is the idea?”. Thereupon, Sy Pio turned around and fired at him as well. The bullet
entered the right shoulder of Tan and passed through his back. Tan immediately ran to a
room behind the store to hide. He was still able to hear gunshots from Sy Pio’s pistol, but
afterwards, Sy Pio ran away.

Tan was brought to the Chinese General Hospital where his wound was treated. He stayed
there from Septenber 3-12, 1949. He was released upon his request and against physician’s advice
and was requested to return for further treatment which he did 5 times in a period of 10 days. His
wound was completely healed; he spent P300 for hospital and doctor’s fees.

Sy Pio was found by the Constabulary in Tarlac. Lomotan, a police from Manila Police
Department went to Tarlac to get Sy Pio. He admitted to Lomotan that he shot the victims and
handed him the pistol used in the shooting.

According to Sy Pio’s declaration, some months prior to the incident, he was employed in
a restaurant owned by Ong Pian. Sy Pio’s wife, Vicenta was also employed by Ong Pian’s partner.
When he tried to borrow money from Ong Pian for his wife’s sick father, Ong Pian only lent him
P1. His wife was able to borrow P20 from her employer.

Afterwards, Sy Pio was dismissed from his work. Ong Pian presented a list of Sy Pio‘s
debts and these were deducted from his wife‘s monthly salary. Sy Pio could not remember
incurring such debts. As such, he was resentful of Ong Pian’s conduct.

In Tan’s case, a few months before Sept.3, Sy Pio was able to realize the sum of P70 and
he put his money in a place in his room. The next day, Sy Pio found that his money was gone. Tan
told Sy Pio that he had probably given the money to his wife. Thereafter, Sy Pio could hear that
he had lost his money gambling. So early in the morning of Sept 3, while Ngo Cho, a Chinaman
who has a pistol was away, he got his pistol and went to a restaurant in Ongpin where Ong Pian
worked and shot him. Afterwards he went to Sta Cruz and shot Jose Sy and Tan.

ISSUE: W/N Sy Pio perform all acts of execution necessary to produce the death of the victim
RULING

In the case of US v. Eduave, People v. Dagman, and People v. Borinaga, the Court held
that it is not necessary that the accused actually commit all the acts of execution necessary to
produce the death of the victim, but that it is sufficient that he believes that he has committed all
said acts.

In the case at bar, the fact that Tan was able to escape, which Sy Pio must have seen,
must have produced in his mind that he was not able to hit the victim at a vital part of the
body. In other words, Sy Pio knew that he had not perform all the acts of execution necessary
to kill Tan. It does not appear that Sy Pio continued in the pursuit, and as matter of fact, he run
away afterwards a reasonable doubt exists in our mind that the Sy Pio had actually believed that
he had committed all the acts of execution or passed the subjective phase of the said acts.

The Court therefore, is not prepared to find Sy Pio guilty of frustrated murder, as charged
in the information. We only find him guilty of attempted murder, because he did not perform
all the acts of execution, actual and subjective, in order that the purpose and intention that
he had to kill his victim might be carried out.

Judgment appealed is modified, and Sy Pio is found guilty of the crime of attempted
murder, and the sentence imposed upon him reduced to an indeterminate penalty of from 4 years,
2 months, and 1 day of prision correctional, to 10 years of prision mayor.