Professional Documents
Culture Documents
People vs. Sy Pio
People vs. Sy Pio
1H
FACTS:
Note: This is an appeal of the Court of First Instance of Manilas judgement finding Sy Pio
guilty of frustrated murder against Tan Siong Kiap, and sentencing him to suffer an
indeterminate sentence of 6 years, 1 month, and 11 days of prision mayor, to 14 years, 8
months, and 1 day of reclusion temporal, to indemnify Tan Siong Kiap in the sum of P350,
without subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency, and to pay the costs. Sy Pio shot
three people on September 3, 1949.
Sy Pios declaration:
Some months prior to the incident, he was employed as an attendant in a restaurant owned by Ong Pian. Sy
Pios wife, Vicenta, was also employed by On Pians partner, Eng Cheng Suy. When Sy Pio tried to borrow
money from Ong Pian for Vicentas sick father, Ong Pian could only lend him P1. Vicenta was able to
borrow P20 from her employer. Afterwards, Sy Pio was dismissed from his work and became a peddler.
Ong Pian presented a list of Sy Pios debts, which was deducted from Vicentas monthly salary. Sy Pio
could not remember incurring such debts, and so he resented Ong Pians conduct.
A few months before September 3, Sy Pio was able to realize the sum of P70 from peddling medicine, and
he kept the money in his room. The following morning, Sy Pio found that the money was gone. Tan Siong
Kiap and Jose Sy told Sy Pio that he must have given the money to his wife. Thereafter, Sy Pio overheard
Boco, Pierre Jedd D.
1H
hear Tan Siong Kiap and Jose Sy say that Sy Pio had actually lost the money gambling. Because of these
accusations against him, Sy Pio nurtured resentment against the two.
September 3, early morning, while Ngo Cho, a Chinaman and the owner of a caliber .45 pistol, was away
from his room, Sy Pio took the gun and tucked it in his belt. Sy Pio proceeded to Ong Pians restaurant in
Ongpin and shot him. Afterwards, Sy Pio went to the store in Misericordia, Sta Cruz, Manila and shot Jose
Sy and Tan Siong Kiap. From there, he went to his mothers house in Malabon and told her that he had
killed two people.
Sy Pio disowned the confession and explained that he signed it without having read its contents
during the trial, however.
Sy Pio alleged that he did not shoot the three men, but that Chua Tone with whom he had
previously connived to kill the three did. Sy Pio did not introduce any witnesses to support his
denial. Neither did he deny that he admitted before Captain Lomotan having killed the three
persons, or having been found in possession of the caliber .45 pistol.
The trial court refused to believed his testimony and found him guilty of the crime charged.
ISSUE:
Whether or not Sy Pio can be convicted of frustrated murder. (Did he perform all the acts of execution
necessary to produce the death of his victim?)
RULING:
The court had previously held (U.S. vs. Eduave, People vs. Dagman, and People vs. Borinaga) that it is not
necessary that the accused actually commit all the acts of execution necessary to produce the death of his
Boco, Pierre Jedd D.
1H
victim, that it is sufficient that he believes that he has committed all said acts. In these cases, the court held
that the crimes committed were frustrated murder, because there was full and complete belief on the part
of the assailant that he had committed all the acts of execution necessary to produce the death of the intended
victim.
In the case at bar, Sy Pio fired at Tan Siong Kiap, and the latter was hit, but was able to escape and hide in
another room. Sy Pio must have seen that Tan Siong Kiap was able to escape; Sy Pio knew that he had not
performed all the acts of execution necessary to kill his victim. It cannot be said that the subjective phase
had been completed. But because Sy Pio ran away after the incident, there was reasonable doubt in the court
that Sy Pio may have actually believed that he had committed all the acts of execution. This doubt must be
resolved in Sy Pios favor.
Sy Pio was found guilty of attempted murder.