Precedent No. 73/2025/AL was adopted by the Council of Justices of the Supreme People’s Court on December 24, 2025, and published under Decision No. 339a/QĐ-CA dated December 25, 2025, by the Chief Justice of the Supreme People’s Court.
1. What is a precedent?
Precedents are arguments and rulings in legally effective judgments and decisions of the Courts regarding specific cases selected by the Council of Justices of the Supreme People’s Court and published by the Chief Justice of the Supreme People’s Court as precedents for Courts to study and apply in adjudication. (Article 1 of Resolution 04/2019/NQ-HĐTP)
A selected precedent must meet the following criteria:
– It has the value of clarifying legal provisions that have different interpretations; analyzing and explaining legal issues and events; and pointing out principles, directions for handling, and legal norms to be applied in a specific case or demonstrating equity toward issues for which there are no specific legal provisions;
– It is of a standard nature;
– It has the value of guiding the uniform application of the law in adjudication.
2. Precedent No. 73/2025/AL on the application of the aggravating circumstance “Intentionally committing the crime to the end”
2.1. Source of the precedent
First-instance criminal judgment No. 02/2020/HS-ST dated January 8, 2020, of the People’s Court of Ca Mau Province regarding the case of “Murder” against defendant Pham Van D.
Location of the precedent content:
Paragraphs 3 and 8 of the “Court’s Assessment” section.
2.2. Overview of the precedent content
– Case situation:
The defendant used a dangerous weapon to attack a vital area of the victim’s body, causing the victim to fall into the sea, and then the defendant threatened others to prevent them from rescuing the victim.
– Legal solution:
In this case, the Court must apply the aggravating circumstance of “Intentionally committing the crime to the end” against the defendant.
Legal provisions related to the precedent:
Point e, Clause 1, Article 52, and Article 123 of the Criminal Code of Vietnam 2015 (amended and supplemented in 2017, 2024, and 2025).
Keywords of the precedent:
“Murder”; “Intentionally committing the crime to the end”; “Threatening others not to rescue the victim”.
CASE CONTENT:
According to the documents in the case file and the developments at the trial, the content of the case is summarized as follows:
At around 10:00 PM on March 14, 2019, the sea-going vessel BT 936.. TS named X was anchored at coordinates 07001’N-104030’E in the waters of Ca Mau province for fishermen to rest. There were 12 fishermen on the vessel, including: Luu Hong V, Le Hoang G, Lam Quoc T1, Nguyen Van P, Ho Thanh T2, Le Van H1, Mai Van T3, Phan Văn K, Nguyen Van H2, Huynh Van T4, Nguyen Van T (other names: K1, K2), and Pham Van D.
At this time, T took T4’s phone charger to use; T4 did not allow it, so the two argued. T4 used his hand to hit T, and T used a yellow-handled Thai knife to stab T4 twice, causing skin scratches. T4 climbed down from the upper cabin to the lower cabin where D was sleeping. D asked what happened, and T4 said he was stabbed by T with a knife. Then, T4 went to the kitchen, took a billhook knife, and threw it at T but missed. T4 told D to “beat him to death for me.” Hearing T4’s words, D agreed and went down to the engine room to take a 58cm long metal pipe with a 3cm diameter and walked along the right side of the vessel to the front. At this time, T4 took the knife (the one he had thrown at T earlier) in his right hand and walked toward T (toward the bow). Seeing T4 approaching with a knife, T held a knife and approached to engage, and both took defensive stances to fight. D walked from the right side to stand behind T, used both hands to hold the metal pipe, and struck downward, hitting T in the nape of the neck, causing T to fall into the sea. At this moment, the fishermen on the vessel saw T floating naturally with the current and intended to jump down to rescue T, but D said: “Whoever jumps down, I will beat them all to death,” so no one dared to jump down to rescue T. When Luu Hong V, the skipper of the vessel, found out, he shone a light to search for T, but due to the strong current, T could not be found. Mr. V reported to the vessel owner, Dang Van N, on land to go to the Border Guard Station to make a preliminary report. Later, the aforementioned vessel returned to shore and handed D over to the authorities for handling.
According to the results of the search announcements on mass media and the results of working with the victim’s family, the body of victim Nguyen Van T has not been found to date.
* Seized evidence: 01 (one) circular metal pipe 58cm long, 03 cm in diameter; 01 (one) metal knife, 33cm long, with a 24cm blade, the widest point being 6.5cm; 01 (one) black Oppo phone, IMEI1: 863008038017553, IMEI2: 863008038017546 (with 01 SIM card inside).
In Indictment No. 33/CT-VKS-P1 dated November 12, 2019, the People’s Procuracy of Ca Mau province prosecuted defendant Pham Van D for the crime of “Murder” under Point n, Clause 1, Article 123 of the Penal Code.
At the trial:
– The representative of the Procuracy maintained the prosecution decision and requested the Trial Panel: Regarding criminal responsibility, to sentence the defendant to between 13 and 15 years in prison and compensation of 100 times the base salary, equal to 149,000,000 VND, to the victim’s family.
– The defense counsel for the defendant requested the Trial Panel to consider mitigating circumstances: The defendant made a sincere declaration and showed repentance; the defendant has no prior criminal record, has limited awareness due to illiteracy, and the cause of the crime was to defend T4. At the same time, the counsel requested clarification of the legal basis for determining that the victim is dead to consider the compensation level as requested by the Procuracy.
– The defendant admitted all criminal acts as prosecuted in the Indictment and had no arguments, only requesting a reduced sentence.
– The legal representative of the victim requested that the defendant be handled according to legal regulations and requested that the defendant compensate for spiritual loss according to regulations.
COURT’S ASSESSMENT:
[1] Based on the content of the case and the documents in the case file that were debated at the trial, the Trial Panel assesses as follows:
[2] Regarding procedure: The procedural acts and decisions of the Investigation Agency, the Procuracy, Investigators, and Prosecutors during the investigation and prosecution were carried out in accordance with the competence, order, and procedures prescribed by the Criminal Procedure Code. The defense counsel, the defendant, and the legal representative of the victim did not have any opinions or complaints regarding the acts or decisions of the procedural agencies or procedural persons. Therefore, the procedural acts and decisions carried out by the procedural agencies and procedural persons are all legal.
[3] Regarding the charge: At around 10:00 PM on March 14, 2019, on the sea-going vessel BT 936.. TS named X anchored at coordinates 07001’N-104030’E in the waters of Ca Mau province, upon knowing that Huynh Van T4 was injured by Nguyen Van T using a Thai knife, Pham Van D defended T4 by using a metal pipe to strike T once in the nape of the neck, causing T to fall into the sea, while simultaneously threatening the fishermen on the vessel not to rescue him. To date, T’s body has not been found.
[4] It is observed that, solely due to the conflict between T4 and T, the defendant should have intervened but instead participated in the fight, using a metal pipe as a dangerous weapon to strike a vital area of Mr. T’s body, causing Mr. T to fall into the sea, and the body has not been found. The progression of the defendant’s criminal acts was witnessed by many fishermen on the vessel. The Investigation Agency also conducted an investigative experiment with the defendant on March 25, 2019. The results of the investigative experiment are consistent with the statements of the defendant and the fishermen on the vessel. Therefore, there is a sufficient basis to conclude: The defendant’s criminal act was of a hooligan nature, meeting all the elements to constitute the crime of “Murder.”
[5] Regarding the defense counsel’s view that there is no legal basis to determine the victim’s death and requesting further investigation: The Court also issued Notice No. 13/2019/TB-TA dated December 23, 2019, requesting the Procuracy to supplement documents and evidence to determine that victim T is dead, but this was not accepted by the Procuracy. It is observed that the defendant’s act of using a metal pipe to strike victim T in the nape of the neck caused the victim to fall into the sea, followed by a threatening attitude: “Whoever jumps down, I will beat them all to death,” disregarding the consequences, and in reality, the victim’s body has not been found to date; the family completed death registration procedures for victim T on October 24, 2019. At the trial, the Trial Panel allowed the defendant and the victim’s legal representative to identify the victim through photos, and both correctly identified the victim as Nguyen Van T. Therefore, the aforementioned act of the defendant has sufficient elements to constitute the crime of “Murder”; the consequence of death is only significant for sentencing and does not affect the determination of the charge against the defendant.
[6] Therefore, Indictment No. 33/CT-VKS-P1 dated November 12, 2019, of the People’s Procuracy of Ca Mau province prosecuting defendant Pham Van D for the crime of “Murder” under Point n, Clause 1, Article 123 of the Penal Code is grounded.
[7] Regarding criminal responsibility: Considering the nature, severity, and consequences caused by defendant D’s actions, which are very dangerous to society and fall under a particularly serious case. The defendant’s criminal acts caused a sense of bewilderment and fear among the public and disrupted political security and social order in the locality. The cause of the criminal act was the defendant’s hooligan nature, disregard for the law, and desire to resolve conflicts with violence. When victim T fell into the sea, the defendant acted to threaten other fishermen to prevent them from helping. This shows that the defendant was determined to commit the crime to the end, desiring Mr. T’s death. Therefore, it is necessary to apply a strict penalty, isolating the defendant from social life for a long time to ensure deterrence, education, and rehabilitation of the defendant and general prevention for society.
[8] Regarding aggravating and mitigating circumstances: The defendant’s act of threatening other fishermen not to help the victim is an act of intentionally committing the crime to the end, so the defendant must bear the aggravating circumstance prescribed at Point e, Clause 1, Article 52 of the Penal Code. The defendant had an attitude of sincere declaration and repentance; he has no prior criminal record, is illiterate, and has limited legal awareness, so the defendant is entitled to the mitigating circumstance prescribed at Point s, Clause 1, Article 51 of the Penal Code.
[9] Regarding civil responsibility: The victim’s legal representative requested the defendant to compensate for spiritual loss according to legal regulations. The representative of the Procuracy requested the defendant to be forced to compensate 100 times the base salary, amounting to 149,000,000 VND. The defendant agreed not to argue, so the Trial Panel found the Procuracy’s request appropriate and accepted it.
[10] Regarding the handling of evidence: Return to the victim’s legal representative 01 (one) black Oppo phone; the remaining evidence has no more use value and should be confiscated and destroyed entirely.
[11] Regarding Huynh Van T4, Le Hoang G, and Nguyen Van P, who were present when T4 told D to hit T: the investigation has not been able to work with them as they have left the locality. The Procuracy’s view requesting the Investigation Agency – Ca Mau Provincial Police to continue the investigation to clarify if there is a role as accomplices for later handling is appropriate.
[12] First-instance criminal court fees and first-instance civil court fees must be borne by defendant Pham Van D according to legal regulations.
For these reasons,
DECISION:
Pursuant to Point n, Clause 1, Article 123; Article 38; Article 48; Point e, Clause 1, Article 52; Point s, Clause 1, Article 51 of the Penal Code; Article 106, Clause 2, Article 135, and Clause 2, Article 136 of the Criminal Procedure Code; Articles 584, 585, and 591 of the Civil Code; Resolution No. 326/2016/UBTVQH14 dated December 30, 2016, of the National Assembly Standing Committee on court fees and charges.
1. Declare: Defendant Pham Van D (other name: Nguyen Van D) is guilty of “Murder.”
2. Regarding criminal responsibility: Sentence defendant Pham Van D to 15 (fifteen) years in prison. The prison term is calculated from March 21, 2019.
3. Regarding civil responsibility: Force defendant Pham Van D to compensate the legal representative of the victim (represented by Ms. Tran Thi Thuy N) for spiritual loss in the amount of 149,000,000 VND.
From the date of the request for judgment enforcement by the judgment creditor until all sums of money are paid, if judgment enforcement is delayed, the judgment debtor must also pay monthly interest on the remaining amount to be enforced at the interest rate prescribed in Clause 2, Article 468 of the Civil Code 2015.
4. Regarding the handling of evidence:
Return to the legal representative of the victim (represented by Ms. Tran Thi Thuy N): 01 (one) black Oppo phone, IMEI1: 863008038017553, IMEI2: 863008038017546 (with 01 SIM card inside).
Confiscate and destroy 01 (one) circular metal pipe 58cm long, 03 cm in diameter; 01 (one) metal knife, 33cm long, blade 24cm, widest point 6.5cm.
(These items are being managed by the Civil Judgment Enforcement Department of Ca Mau province according to the evidence handover record dated November 12, 2019, between the Investigation Police Agency – Ca Mau Provincial Police and the Civil Judgment Enforcement Department of Ca Mau province)
5. Regarding court fees:
First-instance criminal court fees: Force defendant D to pay 200,000 VND.
First-instance civil court fees: Force defendant D to pay 7,450,000 VND.
In case the judgment is enforced according to the provisions of Article 2 of the Law on Civil Judgment Enforcement, the civil judgment creditor and the civil judgment debtor have the right to request enforcement according to the provisions of Articles 6, 7, and 9 of the Law on Civil Judgment Enforcement; the statute of limitations for judgment enforcement is carried out in accordance with Article 30 of the Law on Civil Judgment Enforcement.
The first-instance trial was public; the defendant and the legal representative of the victim have the right to appeal within 15 days from the date of the sentence announcement.
CONTENT OF THE PRECEDENT
“[3] Regarding the charge: At around 10:00 PM on March 14, 2019, on the sea-going vessel BT936.. TS named X anchored at coordinates 07001’N-104030’E in the waters of Ca Mau province, upon knowing that Huynh Van T4 was injured by Nguyen Van T using a Thai knife, Pham Van D defended T4 by using a metal pipe to strike T once in the nape of the neck, causing T to fall into the sea, while simultaneously threatening the fishermen on the vessel not to rescue him. To date, T’s body has not been found.”.
“[8] Regarding aggravating and mitigating circumstances: The defendant’s act of threatening other fishermen not to help the victim is an act of intentionally committing the crime to the end, so the defendant must bear the aggravating circumstance prescribed at Point e, Clause 1, Article 52 of the Penal Code… ”.
