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 Pio‘s 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 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 fpr his wife‘s 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 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 Siong Kiap‘s 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

US V CATOLICO
Facts: The accused was a justice of the peace. He rendered decisions in certain cases, each one for damages
resulting from a breach of contract, from which the defendants appealed. As required by law, the defendants
deposited P16.00 and a bond of f*50.00 for each case. It appeared that the sureties on the said bonds were
insolvent and that the defendants did not present new bonds within the time fixed
by the accused as justice of the peace. Upon petition of the plaintiffs, the accused dismissed the appeals and
ordered said sums attached and delivered to the plaintiffs in satisfaction of the judgment. The accused was
prosecuted for malversation (a felony punishable now under Art. 217).
Held: The act of the accused, in permitting the sums deposited with him to be attached in satisfaction of the
judgment rendered by him, was not unlawful. Everything he did was done in good faith under the belief that he
was acting judiciously and correctly. The act of a person does not make him a criminal, unless his mind be
criminal.

Actus non facit reum, nisi mens sit rea — a crime is not committed if the mind of the person performing to
act complained be innocent. It is true that a presumption of criminal intent may arise from proof of the
commission of a criminal act; and the general rule is that if it is proved that the accused committed the criminal
act charged, it will be presumed that the act was done with criminal intention and that it is for the accused to
rebut this presumption. But it must be borne in mind that the act from which such presumption springs must be
a criminal act. In the case at bar, the act was not criminal.

US V AH CHONG

Facts: Ah Chong was a cook in Ft. McKinley. He was afraid of bad elements. One evening, before going to
bed, he locked himself in his room by placing a chair against the door. After having gone to bed, he was
awakened by someone trying to open the door. He called out twice, "Who is there," but received no answer.
Fearing that the intruder was a robber, he leaped from his bed and called out again, "If you enter the room I will
kill you." But at that precise moment, he was struck by the chair that had been placed against the door, and
believing that he was being attacked he seized a kitchen knife and struck and fatally wounded the intruder who
turned out to be his roommate.
Held:
Ah Chong must be acquitted because of mistake of fact. Had the facts been as Ah Chong believed them to be,
he would have been justified in killing the intruder under Article 11, paragraph 1, of the Revised Penal Code,
which requires, to justify the act, that there be —
(1) unlawful aggression on the part of the person killed,
(2) reasonable necessity of