Case Digest: People vs. Sy, G.R. No. L-5848, April 30, 1954

                     Rule 115: Rights of the Accused  | Criminal Procedure

                    Right to be Informed of the Nature and Cause of the Accusation


Facts:

Sy Pio (Policarpio de la Cruz), was charged with frustrated murder against Tan Siong Kiap.

On September 3, 1949, Sy entered a store in Manila and began firing shots with a .45 caliber pistol. Tan Siong Kiap confronted the defendant, asking why he was shooting. In response, the defendant turned and shot Tan Siong Kiap, hitting him in the right shoulder.

Tan Siong Kiap sought medical treatment, incurring expenses of P300, and spent a total of nine days in the hospital. The defendant also admitted to shooting two other individuals prior to the incident involving Tan Siong Kiap  Ong Pian and Jose Sy.

The defendant was apprehended in Tarlac and admitted to the shootings in a statement to Captain Lomotan. The .45 caliber pistol used in the crimes was confiscated from the defendant.

The defendant-appellant had previously worked at a restaurant belonging to Ong Pian and had borrowed money from him, which he resented when deductions were made from his wife's salary to repay the debt. The defendant-appellant also had resentment towards Tan Siong Kiap and Jose Sy due to accusations that he lost money in gambling.

On September 3, the defendant-appellant took a pistol from Ngo Cho's room, went to the restaurant, and shot Ong Pian. He then proceeded to another location and fired at Jose Sy and Tan Siong Kiap before fleeing.

During the trial, the defendant-appellant disowned the written confession and claimed he signed it without reading its contents. He denied being the shooter and instead implicated someone named Chua Tone, but provided no supporting witnesses. However, he admitted to many incidents mentioned in the confession and acknowledged his resentment towards the victims.


Issue:

WON the evidence is not sufficient to sustain the judgment of conviction.


Held:  YES

EVIDENCE SUFFICIENT TO SUSTAIN JUDGMENT OF CONVICTION.

Where the admissions made by the defendant at the time of trial regarding the incidents, as well as the cause of his having assaulted his victims coincide exactly with the reasons given in his written confession, which he himself could have known, the claim that the offense has not been proved beyond reasonable doubt must be dismissed.

In the case at bar, the defendant fired at his victim, and the latter was hit, but he was able to escape and hide in another room. The fact that he was able to escape, which defendant must have seen, must have produced in his mind that he was not able to hit his victim at a vital part  of the body. In other words, he knew that he had not actually performed all the acts of execution necessary to kill his victim. Under these circumstances, it can not be said that the subjective phase of the acts of execution had been completed. Hence, he is guilty of attempted murder.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Equality and Human Rights: The United Nations and Human Rights System (September 16, 2023)

Commercial Laws 1: R.A. No. 11057 — Personal Property Security Act

Land Title and Deeds: Chapter 1 — What Lands are Capable of Being Registered