People vs.

Sy Pio
Facts: Sy Pio shot three people early in the morning of September 3, 1949. Tan Siong Kiap, Ong Pian
and Jose Sy. Sy Pio entered the store at 511 Misericordia Sta Cruz Manila and started firing with
a .45 caliber pistol. First to be shot was Jose Sy. Upon seeing Sy Pio fire at Jose Sy, Tan asked
what is the idea? thereupon, Sy Pio turned around and fired at him as well. Tan was shot at his
right shoulder and it passed through his back. He ran to a room behind the store to hide. He was
still able to hear gunshots from Sy Pios pistol, but afterwards, Sy Pio ran away.
Tan Siong Kiap 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 physicians 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 doctors 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 Pios declaration, some months prior to the incident, he was employed in a
restaurant owned by Ong Pian. Sy Pios wife, Vicenta was also employed by Ong Pians partner. When
he tried to borrow money from Ong Pian fpr his wifes sick father, Ong Pian only lent him P1. his
wife was able to borrow P20 from her employer.
Afterwards, defendant-appellant was dismissed from his work. Ong Pian presented a list of Sy Pios
debts and these were deducted from his wifes monthly salary. Sy Pio could not remember incurring
such debts. As such, he was resentful of Ong Pians conduct.
In Tan Siong Kiaps case, a few months before Sept3, 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
tolf Sy Pio that he had probably given the money to his wife. Thereafter, Sy Pio could hear that he
had lost his money gambling. ASo 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.
Issues:
Trial court erred in not finding that Tan received the shot accidentally from the same bullet that
had been fired at Jose Sy.
The evidence is not sufficient to sustain the judgment of conviction.
Lower court erred in sentencing him to pay an indemnity of P350.
Defendant-appellant should only be found guilty of less serious physical injuries instead of
frustrated murder.
Held:
1. Sy Pio had to turn around to shoot Tan Siong Kiap.
2. There is sufficient proof. (Uncontradicted testimony of the victim, admissions made to Lomotan,
testimony of physician, etc.)
3. Assignment of error must be dismissed. Offended party spent P300 for the hospital fees.
4. The fact that he was able to escape which appellant must have seen, must have produced in the
mind of the defendant-appellant that he was not able to hit his victim at a vital part of the body.
The defendant appellant knew that he had not actually performed all acts of execution necessary to
kill his victim. Under these circumstances, it cannot be said that the subjective phase of the acts
of execution had been completed.
-Adapt