United States vs. Luis Bien

A crime is attempted, not frustrated, when the offender's acts are directly overt but the consummation of the crime is prevented by the intervention of third persons rather than by the offender's voluntary and spontaneous desistance. The classification of the crime depends on whether the non-consummation was due to the aggressor's own voluntary act or to external causes beyond his control.

The case involves a fishing concession dispute in the pueblo of Bacacay, Albay. The offended party, Go Sui Chiang, a Chinaman, had obtained from competent authority a license to engage in fishing within a maritime zone, while the defendant, Luis Bien, a native, was found fishing in that same zone with a hoop net. The Penal Code governed the classification of the crime, specifically articles 3, 11, 61, 66, and 404, which define attempted felonies, mitigating circumstances, accessory penalties, and the penalty for homicide.

Between 8 and 9 o'clock on the morning of May 3, 1910, Go Sui Chiang, a Chinaman and resident of the pueblo of Bacacay, Albay, heard that several men were fishing by means of a hoop net within the maritime fishing zone comprised in the concession he had obtained. He got into a small boat, or baroto, and went to the point indicated. When he reached a place where there was a depth of about 3 varas of water, he was approached by Luis Bien in his own baroto. Chiang told Bien to cease fishing and leave the place, whereupon Bien caught hold of the Chinaman and threw him into the water.

Because Chiang could not swim, he made efforts to keep himself afloat until he succeeded in seizing the gunwale of the boat in which he had come. While one of the defendant's companions told Bien to submerge the Chinaman at a place where the water was deeper, Camilo Bas and Victorino Bas, whose attention had been attracted to the spot by the Chinaman's cries for help, arrived on the scene. They prevented the defendant from striking the victim with an oar and took the victim to the shore. Chiang then immediately went to the lieutenant of the barrio, presenting himself with his clothes wet, and reported that the defendant had thrown him into the water with the intention of drowning him.

The two witnesses presented by the defense testified that the Chinaman did appear at the fishing place on the morning of the crime, that he inquired as to the ownership of the net and, on learning it belonged to the defendant, approached Bien in his boat and immediately got into the boat where the defendant was. They claimed they did not see what afterwards transpired and that the Chinaman left his boat floating on the water and returned to the land without getting wet. These statements were belied at trial by the testimony of the two witnesses who helped the Chinaman out of the water and took him to land thoroughly drenched, and by the testimony of the lieutenant of the barrio before whom the Chinaman immediately appeared to make his complaint.

The prosecution witnesses did not see the defendant throw the Chinaman into the water, for when they came up to him in response to his cries, they found him already in the water holding on to the gunwale of the boat. However, neither the defendant nor his witnesses could explain how and in what manner the Chinaman fell into the water. The trial court found it could not be believed that the Chinaman, with no reason whatever and not knowing how to swim, should have jumped into the water, and it was not proven that his fall was due to an accident.

• Denial of Guilt: The defendant denied the charge and pleaded not guilty, with defense witnesses testifying that the Chinaman boarded the defendant's boat voluntarily and returned to land without getting wet.
• Lack of Direct Evidence: The defense's witnesses testified that they did not see what transpired between the defendant and the Chinaman, and the prosecution's own witnesses did not see the defendant actually throw the victim into the water.

• Criminal Act Established: The prosecution presented the testimony of Camilo Bas and Victorino Bas, who responded to the victim's cries and found him in the water holding onto the gunwale of the boat, and the testimony of the lieutenant of the barrio before whom the victim appeared with wet clothes to report the incident.
• Improbability of Accident: The prosecution argued that it could not be believed that the Chinaman, with no reason and not knowing how to swim, would have jumped into the water, and that no evidence showed his fall was accidental.

• Classification of the Crime: Whether the crime committed should be classified as attempted homicide or frustrated homicide.
• Sufficiency of Evidence: Whether the evidence was sufficient to prove the defendant's guilt beyond reasonable doubt.

• Classification of the Crime: Attempted homicide. The crime was classified as attempted, not frustrated, homicide under article 404 in connection with article 3, second paragraph, and article 66 of the Penal Code, because the victim's death was prevented by the opportune intervention of third persons, not by the aggressor's voluntary desistance.
• Sufficiency of Evidence: Yes. The defendant was convicted as the sole perpetrator by direct participation, the record showing decisive and conclusive proof of his guilt in throwing the non-swimming Chinaman into the water and attempting to loosen the victim's hold on the boat with an oar.

• Classification of the Crime: The Court reasoned that the crime of attempted homicide was actually committed because the Chinaman was thrown into the water where he was exposed to asphyxia through submersion, as he did not know how to swim. The assailant commenced the commission of the crime directly by overt acts. If the death of the party attacked was not consummated, it was because of the opportune intervention of two witnesses who responded to the Chinaman's cries when he was sinking and helped him get out of the water and reach the land. The Court emphasized that it may not be said that the crime was not consummated because of any voluntary and spontaneous desistance on the part of the aggressor; hence, the crime should be technically classified as attempted homicide, provided for and punished by article 404, in connection with article 3, second paragraph, and article 66 of the Penal Code.

• Sufficiency of Evidence: The Court found the defendant's denial and plea of not guilty overcome by the decisive and conclusive proof of his guilt. The defendant threw the Chinaman into the water, the latter being unable to swim, and further attempted, by the use of an oar, to loosen the victim's hold upon the boat. The victim was saved only due to the assistance of two eyewitnesses who responded to his call for help and took him to land, where he presented himself with thoroughly drenched clothes to the lieutenant of the barrio. The defense witnesses' statements were belied entirely by the testimony of the two rescuers and the lieutenant. The Court reasoned that because neither the defendant nor his witnesses could explain how the Chinaman fell into the water, and because it could not be believed that the Chinaman, with no reason and not knowing how to swim, would have jumped into the water, the charge must be admitted as true. The fall was not proven to be accidental but, according to the prosecution, was the criminal act of the defendant performed with the unquestionable purpose of doing harm to the offended party who was justly reproaching the defendant for fishing in a place where the offended party had obtained a license.

• Penalty: The Court found no aggravating circumstance, but gave due weight to the special circumstance of article 11 of the Penal Code in view of the defendant being a native, the nature of the act committed, and his scant education. Therefore, the penalty of prision correccional was imposed in the minimum degree.

• Attempted vs. Frustrated Felony — A felony is attempted when the offender commences the commission of the crime directly by overt acts and does not perform all the acts of execution which would produce the felony by reason of some cause or accident other than his own spontaneous desistance. A felony is frustrated when the offender performs all the acts of execution which would produce the felony as a consequence but which, nevertheless, do not produce it by reason of causes independent of the will of the perpetrator. In this case, the crime was attempted because the aggressor did not perform all acts of execution—the victim's rescue by third parties prevented the consummation, and there was no voluntary desistance by the aggressor.

• Voluntary Desistance — The non-consummation of a crime cannot be attributed to voluntary and spontaneous desistance on the part of the aggressor when the prevention of the crime's consummation is due to the opportune intervention of third persons. The Court applied this principle to reject any classification of the crime as merely attempted due to the aggressor's own choice, since the defendant continued his assault until prevented by the arriving witnesses.

• "if the death of the party attacked was not consummated, it was because of the opportune intervention of two witnesses who responded to the cries of the Chinaman when he was sinking and helped him to get out of the water and to reach the land; hence, it may not be said that the crime was not consummated because of any voluntary and spontaneous desistance on the part of the aggressor; consequently the crime under prosecution should be technically classified as attempted homicide." — This passage articulates the ratio decidendi distinguishing attempted from frustrated homicide based on the cause of non-consummation.

• "it can not be believed that the Chinaman, with no reason whatever and not knowing how to swim, should have jumped into the water. On the other hand, it was not proven that his fall was due to an accident, but, according to the prosecution, to the criminal act of the defendant, performed with the unquestionable purpose of doing harm to the offended party." — This passage establishes the sufficiency of circumstantial evidence in proving the defendant's guilt where the defense offered no plausible alternative explanation.

• "the defendant is the sole perpetrator, by direct participation, and fully convicted of the homicidal attempt charged against him; notwithstanding his denial and his plea of not guilty, the record shows decisive and conclusive proof of his guilt." — This passage confirms the standard of proof applied and the finding of guilt based on the totality of the evidence presented.

N/A — The decision does not cite any prior case law.

• Article 404, Penal Code — The provision defining and penalizing homicide, applied as the basis for the conviction of attempted homicide.
• Article 3, second paragraph, Penal Code — The provision defining attempted felonies, applied to classify the crime as attempted because the offender commenced the commission directly by overt acts but did not consummate the crime due to causes independent of his will.
• Article 66, Penal Code — The provision governing the penalty for attempted crimes, applied to determine the proper penalty for attempted homicide.
• Article 11, Penal Code — The provision on mitigating circumstances, applied to reduce the penalty in view of the defendant being a native, the nature of the act committed, and his scant education.
• Article 61, Penal Code — The provision on accessory penalties, applied to impose the accessories of the penalty upon the defendant.

Mapa, Johnson, and Moreland, JJ., concurred.

N/A — No dissenting opinions are noted in the decision.