TodayisMonday,June26,2017

CustomSearch

RepublicofthePhilippines
SUPREMECOURT
Manila

ENBANC

G.R.No.L5848April30,1954

THEPEOPLEOFTHEPHILIPPINES,plaintiffappellee,
vs.
SYPIO,aliasPOLICARPIODELACRUZ,defendantappellant.

ExequielZaballero,Jr.forappellant.
AssistantSolicitorGeneralGuillermoE.TorresandSolicitorFlorencioVillamorforappellee.

LABRADOR,J.:

ThisisanappealfromajudgmentoftheCourtofFirstInstanceofManilafindingthedefendantappellanthereinSy
Pio,aliasPolicarpiodelaCruz,guiltyoffrustratedmurderagainstthepersonofTanSiongKiap,andsentencinghim
tosufferanindeterminatesentenceof6years,1month,and11daysofprisionmayor,to14years,8months,and1
dayofreclusiontemporal, to indemnify the offended party Tan Siong Kiap in the sum of P350, without subsidiary
imprisonmentincaseofinsolvency,andtopaythecosts.ThecasewasappealedtotheCourtofAppeals,butthat
courtcertifiedittothisCourtundertheprovisionsofsection17(4)ofRepublicActNo.296,onthegroundthatthe
crimechargedwascommittedonthesameoccasionthatthedefendantappellanthadcommittedcrimeofmurder,
withwhichthedefendantappellantwasalsocharged.

The evidence for the prosecution shows that early in the morning of September 3, 1949, the defendantappellant
enteredthestoreat511Misericordia,StaCruz,Manila.Onceinsidehestartedfiringa.45caliberpistolthathehad
inhishand.ThefirstoneshotwasJoseSy.TanSiongKiap,whowasinthestoreandsawtheaccusedenterand
afterwards fire a shot at Jose Sy, asked the defendantappellant, "What is the idea?" Thereupon defendant
appellant turned around and fired at him also. The bullet fired from defendantappellant's pistol entered the right
shoulderofTanSiongKiapimmediatelyrantoaroombehindthestoretohide.Fromtherehestillheardgunshot
firedfromdefendantappellant'spistol,butafterwardsdefendantappellantranaway.

TanSiongKiapwasbroughttotheChineseGeneralHospital,wherehiswoundwastreated.Hestayedtherefrom
September3toSeptember12,1949,whenhewasreleaseduponhisrequestandagainstthephysician'sadvice.
Hewasaskedtoreturntothehospitalforfurthertreatment,andhedidsofivetimesforaperiodofmorethanten
days.Thereafterhiswoundwascompletelyhealed.HespentthesumofP300forhospitalanddoctor'sfees.

The defendantappellant shot two other persons in the morning of September 3, 1949, before shooting and
woundingTanSiongKiaponewasOngPianandtheotherJoseSy.OnSeptember5informationwasreceivedby
theManilaPoliceDepartmentthatdefendantappellantwasincustodyoftheConstabularyinTarlac,soacaptainof
theManilapolicebythenameofDanielV.LomotanproceededtoTarlac.Therehesawthedefendantappellantand
had a conversation with him. On this occasion defendantappellant and had a conversation with him. On this
occasion defendantappellant admitted to Lomotan that his victims were Tan Siong Kiap, Ong Pian, and Jose Sy.
TheConstabularyinTarlacalsodeliveredtoLomotanthepistolusedbythedefendantappellant,markedExhibitC,
andits magazine, ExhibitC1,bothofwhichtheConstabularyhadconfiscatedfrom the defendantappellant. The
defendantappellantwasthereupondeliveredtothecustodyofLomotan,andthelatterbroughthimtoManila,where
hisstatementwastakendowninwriting.ThisdeclarationwassubmittedatthetimeofthetrialasExhibitD,andit
containsallthedetailsoftheassaultsthatdefendantappellant3againstthepersonsofTanSiongKiap,OngPian,
and Jose Sy. This written statement was taken down on a typewriter and afterwards signed by the defendant
appellantinbothhisChineseandFilipinonames,thelatterbeingPolicarpiodelaCruz.

Accordingtothedeclarationofthedefendantappellant,somemonthspriortoSeptember3,1949,hewasemployed
asanattendantinarestaurantbelongingtoOngPian.Defendantappellant'swifebythenameofVicentawasalso
employedbyOngPian'spartner,EngChengSuy.PriortoSeptember3therelativesofhiswifehadbeenaskingthe
latterforhelp,becauseherfatherwassick.DefendantappellantaskedmoneyfromOngPian,butthelattercould
only give him P1. His wife was able to borrow P20 from her employer, and this was sent to his wife's parents in
Cebu.AfterwardsdefendantappellantwasdismissedfromhisworkattherestaurantofOngPian,andhebecamea
peddler.OngPianpresentedalistofthesumsthatdefendantappellanthadborrowedfromhim,andthesesums
weredeductedfromthesalaryofhiswife.Defendantappellantdidnotrecognizethesesumsashisindebtedness,
andsoheresentedOngPian'sconduct.

As to Tan Siong Kiap, the confession states that a few days before September 3, 1949, defendantappellant had
beenabletorealizethesumofP70fromthesalesofmedicinethathepeddled.Helaidhismoneyinaplaceinhis
room,butthefollowingmorninghefoundthatithaddisappearedfromtheplaceinwhichhehadplacedit.TanSiong
KiapandJoseSy,uponthediscoveryofthelossofmoney,tolddefendantappellantthathemusthavegiventhe
moneytohiswife,andthatnobodyhadstolenit.Afterthisincidentoftheloss,thedefendantappellantusedtohear
TanSiongKiapandJoseSyandotherChinamensaythatthemoneyhadnotbeenactuallystolen,butthathelostit
ingambling.Becauseoftheseaccusationsagainsthim,henurturedresentmentagainstbothTanSiongKiapand
JoseSy.

SoearlyinthemorningofSeptember3,whileaChinamanbythenameofNgoCho,whothepossessorofacaliber
.45pistol, was awayfromhisroom,defendantappellantgothispistolandtucked it in his belt. With this pistol he
went to the restaurant at 822 Ongpin, and there shot Ong Pian. After shooting him, he proceeded to 511
Misericordia, in store where Jose Sy and Tan Siong Kiap were, and there he fired at them. Then he escaped to
Legarda Street, in Sampaloc, where he borrowed P1 from his relatives. From there he went to Malabon, to the
houseofhismother,towhomhetoldhehadkilledtwopersonsandfromheaskedmoney.

The foregoing is the substance of the written declaration made by the defendantappellant in Exhibit D on
September6,1949.Atthetimeofthetrial,however,hedisownedtheconfessionandexplainedthathesignedit
withouthavingreaditscontents.Hedeclaredthatitwasnothewhoshotthethreevictims,butitwasonebythe
name of Chua Tone, with whom he had previously connived to kill the three other victims. He introduced no
witnesses, however, to support his denial. Neither did he deny that he admitted before Captain Lomotan having
killed the three persons, or having been found in Tarlac in possession of the caliber .45 pistol, Exhibit C, and its
magazine, Exhibit C1. In his crossexamination he admitted many of the incidents mentioned in the confession,
especiallythecauseofhisresentmentagainsthisvictimsOngPian,JoseSy,andTanSiongKiap.

Thetrialcourtrefusedtobelievedhistestimony,andtherefore,foundhimguiltyofthecrimecharged.

OnthisappealcounselforthedefendantappellantclaimsthatthetrialcourterredinnotfindingthatTanSiongKiap
received the shot accidentally from the same bullet that had been fired at Jose Sy, and in finding that defendant
appellant has committedacrimedistinct andseparatefromthatofmurderforthe slaying of Jose Sy. We find no
meritinthiscontention.AccordingtotheuncontradictedtestimonyoftheoffendedpartyTanSiongKiap,whenthe
latters saw defendantappellant firing shots he asked him why he was doing so, and the defendantappellant,
insteadofansweringhim,turnedaroundandfiredathimalso.Itisnottrue,therefore,thattheshotwhichhithim
wasfiredatSy.

Itisalsocontendedthattheevidenceisnotsufficienttosustainthejudgmentofconviction.Wealsofindnomeritin
thiscontention.Theevidencesubmittedtoprovethechargeconsistsof:theuncontradictedtestimonyofthevictim
himself the admissions made verbally by the defendantappellant before Captain Lomotan in Tarlac the fact that
thedefendantappellanthadescapedandwasfoundinTarlachispossessionofthe.45caliberpistolcoupledwith
thefact,attestedtobythetestimonyofthephysicianwhoexaminedandtreatedthewoundsofTanSiongKiap,that
thewoundsfoundinhispersonmusthavebeencausedbythecaliber.45bulletand,lastly,theconfessionofthe
defendantappellant himself, Exhibit D, which he was not able to impugn. As against this mass of evidence,
defendantappellanthasonlymadeaveryunbelievablestorythatitwasnothebutanotherthathadcommittedthe
crime charged. His admissions at the time of the 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. This shows that he had
madetheconfessionhimself,fornobodybuthimselfcouldhaveknownthefactsthereinstated.Theclaimthatthe
offensehasnotbeenprovedbeyondreasonabledoubtmustbedismissed.

ThedefendantappellantlastlyclaimsthatthelowercourtalsoerredinsentencinghimtopayanindemnityofP350.
TheoffendedpartytestifiedthatheactuallyspentP300forhospitalanddoctor'sfees,andthathewasconfinedin
thehospitalforninedays.Theabovefactsstanduncontradicted.Thisassignmentoferrormustalsobedismissed.

Itislastlycontendedthatthedefendantappellantshouldbefoundguiltyonlyoflessseriousphysicalinjuriesinstead
ofthecrimeoffrustratedmurderasdefendantappellantadmittedinhisconfessionintheopencourtthathehada
grudgeagainsttheoffendedparty,andthatheconnivedwithanothertokillthelatter.Theintenttokillisalsoevident
fromhisconductinfiringtheshotdirectlyatthebodyoftheoffendedparty.

Butwhileintenttokillisconclusivelyprovedthewoundinflictedwasnotnecessarilyfatal,becauseitdidnottouch
any of the vital organs of the body. As a matter of fact, the medical certification issued by the physician who
examinedthewoundoftheoffendedpartyatthetimehewenttothehospital,statesthatthewoundwastoheal
withinaperiodoffourteendays,whiletheoffendedpartyactuallystayedinthehospitalforninedaysandcontinued
receivingtreatmentthereafterfivetimefortheperiodofmorethantendays,oratotalofnotmorethanthirtydays.
The question that needs to be determined, therefore, is: Did the defendantappellant perform all the acts of
executionnecessarytoproducethedeathofhisvictim?

InthecasesofU.S.vs.Eduave,36Phil.,209,Peoplevs.Dagman,47Phil.,768andPeoplevs.Borinaga,55Phil.,
433,thisCourthasheldthatitisnotnecessarythattheaccusedactuallycommitalltheactsofexecutionnecessary
toproducethedeathofhisvictim,butthatitissufficientthathebelievesthathehascommittedallsaidacts.Inthe
caseofPeoplevs.Dagman,supra,thevictimwasfirstknockeddownbyastonethrownathim,thenattackedwitha
lance, and then wounded by bolos and clubs wielded by the accused, but the victim upon falling down feigned
death,andtheaccuseddesistedfromfurthercontinuingintheassaultinthebeliefthattheirvictimwasdead.Andin
the case of People vs. Borinaga, supra, the accused stabbed his intended victim, but the knife with which he
committedtheaggressioninsteadofhittingthebodyofthevictim,lodgedinthebackofthechairinwhichhewas
seated,althoughtheaccusedbelievedthathehadalreadyharmedhim.InboththesecasesthisCourtheldthatof
thecrimecommittedwasthatoffrustratedmurder,becausethesubjectivephaseoftheactsnecessarytocommit
the offense had already passed there was full and complete belief on the part of the assailant that he had
committedalltheactsofexecutionnecessarytoproducethedeathoftheintendedvictim.

In the case at bar, however, the defendantappellant fired at his victim, and the latter was hit, but he was able to
escapeandhideinanotherroom.Thefactthathewasabletoescape,whichappellantmusthaveseen,musthave
producedinthemindofthedefendantappellantthathewasnotabletohishisvictimatavitalpartofthebody.In
other words, the defendantappellant knew that he had not actually all the acts of execution necessary to kill his
victim.Underthesecircumstances,itcannotbesaidthatthesubjectivephaseoftheactsofexecutionhadbeen
completed.Andasitdoesnotappearthatthedefendantappellantcontinuedinthepursuit,andasamatteroffact,
heranawayafterwardsareasonabledoubtexistinourmindthatthedefendantappellanthadactuallybelievedthat
he has committed all the acts of execution or passed the subjective phase of the said acts. This doubt must be
resolvedinfavorofthedefendantappellant.

We are, therefore, not prepared to find the defendantappellant guilty of frustrated murder, as charged in the
information.Weonlyfindhimguiltyofattemptedmurder,becausehedidnotperformalltheactsofexecution,actual
andsubjective,inorderthatthepurposeandintentionthathehadtokillhisvictimmightbecarriedout.

Therefore, the judgment appealed from should be, as it is hereby, modified and the defendantappellant is found
guiltyofthecrimeofattemptedmurder,andthesentenceimposeduponhimreducedtoanindeterminatepenaltyof
from 4 years, 2 months, and 1 day of prisioncorreccional to 10 years of prisionmayor. In all other respects the
judgmentisaffirmed.Withcostsagainstthedefendantappellant.

Paras,C.J.,Pablo,Bengzon,Reyes,Jugo,BautistaAngelo,andConcepcion,JJ.,concur.

TheLawphilProjectArellanoLawFoundation