Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1910 > February 1910 Decisions > G.R. No. 5588 February 10, 1910 - UNITED STATES v. ANTONIO BUGARIN

015 Phil 189:




PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

SECOND DIVISION

[G.R. No. 5588. February 10, 1910. ]

THE UNITED STATES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. ANTONIO BUGARIN, Defendant-Appellant.

J. Rodriguez Serra, for Appellant.

Attorney-General Villamor, for Appellee.

SYLLABUS


1. "LESIONES GRAVES;" PENALTY. — A person convicted of the crime of lesiones graves should be punished, under paragraph 3 of article 416 of the Penal Code, with prision correccional in its minimum and medium degrees, if the party injured was disfigured or lost a member, not a principal one, or the member was thereby rendered useless. Distinguished U. S. v. Malig (13 Phil. Rep., 736).


D E C I S I O N


ARELLANO, C.J. :


According to the complaint the crime herein prosecuted consists in that the accused, Antonio Bugarin, upon being caught by Miguel Guillermo one morning in the act of stealing a carabao, struck Guillermo with his bolo, severing the index and middle fingers of his right hand. As a result the injured man’s right hand was rendered useless for work in the fields, his usual occupation.

The accused was very properly convicted on the evidence in the case, and, taking into account the aggravating circumstance that the crime was committed at nighttime, the Court of First Instance of Tarlac sentenced him under the provisions of paragraph 2 of the article 416 of the Penal Code to imprisonment for five years, with the accessory penalties of article 61, to indemnify the injured party in the sum of P20 expended by him in medical treatment, or to suffer subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency at the rate of one day for every twelve and a half pesetas that he failed to pay. The court credited him with one-half of the time he had been held in detention, and sentenced him to pay the costs.

This judgment was appealed from, and the defense only discusses here the weight accorded by the trial court to the evidence in the case; we consider, however, that his finding accords with the merits of the case, and that no error of fact or of law has been committed.

In this instance the Attorney-General moves that the judgment be affirmed, and dwells on the adequate definition given by the learned trial judge of the crime of lesiones graves when applying paragraph 2 of article 416 of the Penal Code, and in corroboration cites the decision of this court in the case of U. S. v. Malig 1 (No. 4869).

Under paragraph 2 of said article 416 a person convicted of lesiones graves is punished with prision correccional in its medium and maximum degrees if, as a result of such injuries, the person assaulted should have lost an eye or any principal member, or should have been hindered in the use thereof, or rendered unable to pursue the occupation in which, up to that time, he had been habitually engaged.

The matter now at issue is not that the assaulted man lost his right hand, or that he has been prevented from using it. The question is whether by having lost a portion of the index and middle fingers of his right hand he has been rendered incapable of working in the fields, which was the occupation in which, up to that time, he had been habitually engaged. We find in the testimony given by the assaulted man:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"Q. Is it not true that you, as a laborer, notwithstanding the fact that your fingers have been cut off, can easily do your work? — A. Yes, sir; but less than formerly.

"Q. But nevertheless you are still engaged in such work? — A. I can assist in field worked, but I can not do it myself; I am unable to guide a plow or use a bolo as before."cralaw virtua1aw library

The trial judge asked the president of the board of health who examined the wounded man and certified and testified as to the result of the injuries: "Q. Can he move his two fingers?" The latter answered: "Yes, sir." "Q. Are they flexible?" "A. Yes, sir."cralaw virtua1aw library

In our opinion this case can not be compared with that against Malig, in which when the injured person was asked if he could follow his trade as a blacksmith he answered that he could not, "I can no longer use this hand," meaning that he was prevented from using this principal member. "Lupo Malig wounded Macario Valdes in the right hand, almost severing the ring finger, which remained hanging by a strip of the skin and which finally had to be amputated by the surgeon who attended him; the metacarpal bone of the third finger was fractured, and, as certified to by the surgeon at the trial, the said finger had become entirely useless, and could not be bent, and there was no possibility of it setting; the wound extended almost to the wrist, and nearly divided the palm of the hand. Valdes received the wound in stopping the blow that Malig aimed at his head with the bolo, and it took more than sixty days to heal." (Extract from information.)

By paragraph 3 of article 416, above cited, a person convicted of the crime of lesiones graves should be punished with prision correccional in its minimum and medium degrees if, as a result of such injuries, the person assaulted should have been deformed or had lost a member not a principal one, or should have had it rendered useless . . . In our opinion the crime herein prosecuted falls within this penalty and should be punished with two years of prision correccional.

The judgment appealed from is hereby fully affirmed; provided, however, that the penalty therein imposed shall be two years of prision correccional, with the costs of this instance against the Appellant. So ordered.

Torres, Mapa, Johnson, Carson, Moreland and Elliott, JJ., concur.

Endnotes:



1. 13 Phil. Rep., 736.




Back to Home | Back to Main




















chanrobles.com





ChanRobles On-Line Bar Review

ChanRobles Internet Bar Review : www.chanroblesbar.com

ChanRobles MCLE On-line

ChanRobles Lawnet Inc. - ChanRobles MCLE On-line : www.chanroblesmcleonline.com






February-1910 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. 5155 February 2, 1910 - UNITED STATES v. GABRIEL DIAZ

    015 Phil 123

  • G.R. No. 5312 February 2, 1910 - ENRIQUE MENDIOLA v. SIMEON A. VILLA

    015 Phil 131

  • G.R. No. 5160 February 3, 1910 - ENRIQUE F. SOMES v. RAFAEL MOLINA Y SALVADOR

    015 Phil 133

  • G.R. No. 5623 February 3, 1910 - UNITED STATES v. JOSE FELICIANO

    015 Phil 142

  • G.R. No. 5624 February 3, 1910 - UNITED STATES v. MARIANO FELICIANO

    015 Phil 144

  • G.R. No. 4150 February 10, 1910 - FELIX DE LOS SANTOS v. AGUSTINA JARRA

    015 Phil 147

  • G.R. No. 5025 February 10, 1910 - JOSE T. PATERNO v. CATALINA SOLIS

    015 Phil 153

  • G.R. No. 5097 February 10, 1910 - UNITED STATE v. PEDRO EDUARDO

    015 Phil 161

  • G.R. No. 5188 February 10, 1910 - LINO ALINDOGAN v. INSULAR GOVERNMENT

    015 Phil 168

  • G.R. No. 5197 February 10, 1910 - UNITED STATES v. VICENTE GENATO

    015 Phil 170

  • G.R. No. 5337 February 10, 1910 - UNITED STATES v. MACARIO SAGUN

    015 Phil 178

  • G.R. No. 5390 February 10, 1910 - UNITED STATES v. MIGUEL M.A DE TORO

    015 Phil 181

  • G.R. No. 5565 February 10, 1910 - UNITED STATES v. ALEXANDER McCORMICK

    015 Phil 185

  • G.R. No. 5588 February 10, 1910 - UNITED STATES v. ANTONIO BUGARIN

    015 Phil 189

  • G.R. No. 5412 February 12, 1910 - ANGEL ORTIZ v. RAMON GARCIA

    015 Phil 192

  • G.R. No. 5418 February 12, 1910 - UNITED STATES v. CECILIO TANEDO

    015 Phil 196

  • G.R. No. 3983 February 15, 1910 - SALVADOR OCAMPO v. TOMAS CABAÑGIS

    015 Phil 626

  • G.R. No. 4950 February 15, 1910 - UNITED STATES v. GREGORIO ALCANTARA

    015 Phil 202

  • G.R. No. 5219 February 15, 1910 - JOSE McMICKING v. PEDRO MARTINEZ

    015 Phil 204

  • G.R. No. 5566 February 15, 1910 - UNITED STATES v. BLAS MORO

    015 Phil 206

  • G.R. No. 5593 February 15, 1910 - UNITED STATES v. FELIX LARIOSA

    015 Phil 208

  • G.R. No. 3821 February 16, 1910 - LUCIA PEREZ v. DOMINGO CORTES

    015 Phil 211

  • G.R. No. 5193 February 16, 1910 - FERNANDO FERRER v. DOROTEA DIAZ

    015 Phil 219

  • G.R. No. 5252 February 16, 1910 - UNITED STATES v. PEDRO MALIGALIG

    015 Phil 222

  • G.R. No. 5266 February 16, 1910 - UNITED STATES v. TORIBIO ABANTO

    015 Phil 223

  • G.R. No. 5516 February 16, 1910 - UNITED STATES v. FRANCISCO SAMEA

    015 Phil 227

  • G.R. No. 4320 February 10, 1910 - FRANCISCA PALET Y DE YEBRA v. ALDECOA & CO.

    015 Phil 232

  • G.R. No. 5168 February 19, 1910 - UNITED STATES v. NICOMEDES MORALES

    015 Phil 236

  • G.R. No. 5496 February 19, 1910 - MERCEDES MARTINEZ Y FERNANDEZ v. HONGKONG & SHANGHAI BANKING CORP.

    015 Phil 252

  • G.R. No. 5161 February 21, 1910 - UNITED STATES v. MIKE BEECHAM

    015 Phil 272

  • G.R. No. 5577 February 21, 1910 - J. W. MEYERS v. WILLIAM THEIN

    015 Phil 303

  • G.R. No. 5359 February 23, 1910 - JOSE COJUANGCO v. MANUEL RODRIGUEZ

    015 Phil 311

  • G.R. No. 5439 February 23, 1910 - UNITED STATES v. PONCIANO SALAZAR

    015 Phil 315

  • G.R. No. 5162 February 26, 1910 - UNITED STATES v. MIKE BEECHAM

    015 Phil 336

  • G.R. No. 5319 February 26, 1910 - UNITED STATES v. SABAS BAOIT

    015 Phil 338

  • G.R. No. 5478 February 26, 1910 - SERAFIN BELARMINO v. MIGUEL BAQUIZAL

    015 Phil 341

  • G.R. No. 5461 February 28, 1910 - PETRONILO DEL ROSARIO v. VICENTE QUIOGUE

    015 Phil 345