Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1910 > March 1910 Decisions > G.R. No. 5606 March 2, 1910 - UNITED STATES v. RAMON INSIERTO

015 Phil 358:




PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

SECOND DIVISION

[G.R. No. 5606. March 2, 1910. ]

THE UNITED STATES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. RAMON INSIERTO, Defendant-Appellant.

Aniceto Reyes, for Appellant.

Solicitor-General Harvey, for Appellee.

SYLLABUS


1. CORRECTION OF MINORS; "LESIONES GRAVES;" AGGRAVATING CIRCUMSTANCES. — The fact that a person accused of administering excessive correction to a child is the uncle of the victim cannot be considered as a aggravating circumstance in applying the penalty for the crime of lesiones graves. The nature of the relationship which may either aggravate or mitigate the criminal liability is defined by the first paragraph of article 10 of Penal Code and exist when the injured person is "the spouse, or ascendant, descendant, legitimate, natural, or adopted brother or sister, or relative by affinity, in the same degrees, of the offender."


D E C I S I O N


ARELLANO, C.J. :


The defendant inflicted upon his niece, Marcelina Cainela, a girl of twelve years of age, three wounds, which required a little over a month to cure, without medical assistance , and of which on the day of the trial nothing but the scars appeared. The wounds were: one on the thigh, another near it, and another in the back, and were the result of punishment inflicted with a reaping hook, because she had been unable to answer a question in a lesson that he was giving her.

The Court of First Instance of Cebu, taking into consideration the aggravating circumstance of parentage and in addition of that of abuse of a person of tender age, sentenced him to two years and four months of prision correccional, with the corresponding accessory penalties, but credited him with one-half of the time of his detention in prison, and to pay the costs, without subjecting him to pay an indemnity for the reason that no evidence had been adduced as to damages.

Marcelina Cainela declared that she lived with her aunt and uncle, Oliva Insierto and Ramon Insierto, the accused; that the latter was her teacher; that he had been teaching her for a long time and did not beat her when she took lessons, and that he beat her on that occasion only because she had been unable to answer his questions.

By his testimony the accused shows that his mental faculties were somewhat unbalanced ever since he suffered from an affection of the head.

The testimony of Oliva Insierto agreed with the statement of her niece, Marcelina Cainela. With respect to the condition of the accused she testified as follows:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"FISCAL. Ramon Insierto, the defendant, has testified that in the month of December, 1908 (when the affair happened), he was insane. Is this true?

"WITNESS. He suffered from that malady after having been wounded.

"FISCAL. Was he not insane before that?

"WITNESS. I do not know, but it is true that the was sick.

"FISCAL. What was the nature of his sickness?

"WITNESS. At first he had pains in the back of the neck and waist."cralaw virtua1aw library

For the simple reason that when the child Marcelina was asked how many days she had been ill she replied more than one month , the injuries inflicted by the accused have been classified as graves. But upon being asked "Who cured you?" she replied: "We ourselves;" that is to say, no medical attendance was required. And, further, it has not been shown whether, as a result, she was unable to attend to her ordinary work.

There is reason to question the classification of the wounds as graves, made by the trial court, in view of the doctrine established by the decision in cassation of the 23d of December, 1876, to wit, that "in classifying injuries where the special circumstances of Nos. 1, 2, and 3 of article 431 of the Penal Code are not involved (416 of the Code of the Philippines), the application of the criminal law depends entirely upon the longer or shorter duration of the medical attendance, or of the inability to work in the fields, all of which must be considered in classifying the injuries;" for this reason the foregoing decision reversed as erroneous the judgment of the lower court classifying a wound that required forty dates to heal as a grave injury, notwithstanding the fact that it was evident that the injured party had not needed medical attendance after twelve days and was not able to attend to his ordinary work.

But admitting as proper the classification of the wounds as graves, in accordance with No. 4 of article 416 of the Penal Code, the result is that the penalty applicable is that arresto mayor in its maximum degree to prision correccional in its minimum degree, to wit, from four months and one day to six months of arresto, and from six months and one day to two years and four months of prision correccional. Hence, by sentencing the defendant to two years and four months of prision correccional, the court below has applied the extreme penalty; it must therefore have taken into account the two aggravating circumstances which have been considered in its judgment; that of the relationship, and of the age of the injured party.

If in the present case it were possible to consider the circumstance of the relationship, the same article 416, by its paragraph 2, raises the penalty for No. 4 to prision correccional in its minimum and medium degrees; and this would be the penalty that should be applied, not that imposed by the court below, which is merely the penalty prescribed by paragraph 4 of article 416 in its maximum degree.

The fact is that the circumstance of the relationship can not be considered, neither as an aggravating circumstance, as stated in the judgment of the court below, nor as a mitigating one as proposed by the Attorney-General in this instance. The relationship which might aggravate or mitigate criminal liability is defined by the first paragraph of article 10 of the Penal Code: "When the injured person is the spouse, or ascendant, descendant, legitimate, natural, or adopted brother or sister, or relative by affinity in the same degrees of the offender." The girl Marcelina Cainela does not come within any of the above degrees of relationship with respect to the defendant, who is simply her uncle, as she calls him.

As to other aggravating circumstance considered in the judgment and also in the brief of the Attorney-General in this instance, to wit, the insult or contempt for the respect which the injured person deserved on account of her age, there is likewise reason for doubt. It is true that there is always reason for reproach if a outsider should lay his hands on a boy or a girl; but the same act done in order to punish a boy or a girl can not be censured if, for example, it were done by the father or the mother. Punishment, even though it be administered by laying the hands on a child, is not per se, a crime, as long as it is reasonable and moderate. Excessive punishment is the kind for which the penal law punishes the father or mother. It is so stated in paragraph 4 of the said article 416: "The injuries which a father may cause his child in too severe correction are ad included in the preceding paragraph (the second paragraph above cited)." Hence, in the case of the father who corrects his child, the circumstances of relationship or age of the child are not considered as modifying for the reason that they are necessarily involved in such a case of excess of correction, which alone is what constitutes the crime of lesiones.

A child who complains of excessive correction received from his father is always a relative and always a minor. The criminal law does not expressly place a teacher in the same position as a father; but on the other hand, when a pupil or a child causes less grave injuries to his teacher or to his father, the law makes the relation of the injured person a reason for increasing the penalty applicable to the offender.

By virtue of the foregoing, and inasmuch as it is proper to consider said circumstance as the only one in the case, as was done in the judgment appealed from, it is our opinion that the penalty imposed by paragraph 4 of article 416 should be applied in the minimum grade of the maximum degree, reducing the same to one year eight months and one day of prision correccional, one-half of the period of detention being credited to the accused.

Thus modified the judgment appealed from is hereby affirmed; provided, however, that the penalty of two years ad four months imposed therein shall be changed to one year eight months and one day, with the costs of this instance against the Appellant. So ordered.

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




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






March-1910 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. 5447 March 1, 1910 - PAUL REISS v. JOSE M. MEMIJE

    015 Phil 350

  • G.R. No. 5606 March 2, 1910 - UNITED STATES v. RAMON INSIERTO

    015 Phil 358

  • G.R. No. 5629 March 2, 1910 - LUIS FRUCTO v. MAXIMIANO FUENTES

    015 Phil 362

  • G.R. No. 5676 March 2, 1910 - LIM TIU v. RUIZ Y REMETERIA

    015 Phil 367

  • G.R. No. 4788 March 3, 1910 - JUANA URBANO v. PEDRO RAMIREZ

    015 Phil 371

  • G.R. No. 4811 March 3, 1910 - IGNACIO ARROYO v. SANTOS CAPADOCIA

    015 Phil 376

  • G.R. No. 5325 March 3, 1910 - UNITED STATES v. AMADEO CORRAL

    015 Phil 383

  • G.R. No. 4508 March 4, 1910 - MARCIANA CONLU v. PABLO ARANETA

    015 Phil 387

  • G.R. No. 5597 March 5, 1910 - UNITED STATES v. D. B. JEFFREY

    015 Phil 391

  • G.R. No. 5222 March 7, 1910 - UNITED STATES v. SANTIAGO ALUMISIN

    015 Phil 396

  • G.R. Nos. 5426 & 5427 March 7, 1910 - UNITED STATES v. LINO SUMANGIL

    015 Phil 406

  • G.R. No. 5502 March 7, 1910 - UNITED STATES v. GUILLERMO ROMULO

    015 Phil 408

  • G.R. No. L-5569 March 12, 1910 - UNITED STATES v. AGAPITO BIRAY

    017 Phil 584

  • G.R. No. 4991 March 12, 1910 - UNITED STATES v. EMILIO PIMENTEL

    015 Phil 416

  • G.R. No. 5396 March 12, 1910 - CANUTO REYES v. JACINTO LIMJAP

    015 Phil 420

  • G.R. No. 5491 March 12, 1910 - UNITED STATES v. PRIMITIVO GAMILLA

    015 Phil 425

  • G.R. No. 5611 March 12, 1910 - UNITED STATES v. ROMAN VALERO

    015 Phil 428

  • G.R. No. 5560 March 14, 1910 - UNITED STATES v. SILVESTRE QUILLO

    015 Phil 430

  • G.R. No. 5001 March 15, 1910 - ESTEBAN RANJO v. GREGORIO SALMON

    015 Phil 436

  • G.R. No. 5054 March 15, 1910 - MARIA FALCON v. NARCISO L. MANZANO

    015 Phil 441

  • G.R. No. 5112 March 15, 1910 - FRANCISCA BRETA v. SMITH, BELL & CO.

    015 Phil 446

  • G.R. No. 5255 March 15, 1910 - UNITED STATES v. ALEJANDRO MONTELI

    015 Phil 452

  • G.R. No. 5304 March 15, 1910 - UNITED STATES v. NAZARIO PALAOBSANON

    015 Phil 457

  • G.R. No. 5596 March 15, 1910 - UNITED STATES v. SEVERINO BAROT

    015 Phil 463

  • G.R. No. 5254 March 17, 1910 - ANICETO GOMEZ MEDEL v. PEDRO AVECILLA

    015 Phil 465

  • G.R. No. L-5535 March 18, 1910 - UNITED STATES v. CIRIACO PELLEJERA

    017 Phil 587

  • G.R. No. L-5642 March 18, 1910 - UNITED STATES v. VIENTE ARCEO

    017 Phil 592

  • G.R. No. 5381 March 18, 1910 - UNITED STATES v. RUFINO ANCHETA

    015 Phil 470

  • G.R. No. 5272 March 19, 1910 - UNITED STATES v. AH CHONG

    015 Phil 488

  • G.R. No. 5321 March 19, 1910 - UNITED STATES v. PAU TE CHIN

    015 Phil 507

  • G.R. No. 5509 March 19, 1910 - UNITED STATES v. FELIX LOPEZ

    015 Phil 515

  • G.R. No. 5583 March 19, 1910 - G. URRUTIA & CO. v. PASIG STEAMER

    015 Phil 521

  • G.R. No. L-5620 March 21, 1910 - UNITED STATES v. Ilongots PALIDAT ET AL.

    017 Phil 595

  • G.R. No. 4179 March 21, 1910 - RAFAEL AZADA Y LARA v. FRANCISCO MARTINEZ Y GARCIA

    015 Phil 527

  • G.R. No. 4612 March 21, 1910 - PABLO RALLONZA v. TEODORO EVANGELISTA

    015 Phil 531

  • G.R. No. 4654 March 21, 1910 - LEON CABALLERO v. ESTEFANIA ABELLANA

    015 Phil 534

  • G.R. No. 5183 March 21, 1910 - UNITED STATES v. TAN TOK

    015 Phil 538

  • G.R. No. 5480 March 21, 1910 - RICARDO LOPEZ v. ADOLFO OLBES

    015 Phil 540

  • G.R. No. 5487 March 21, 1910 - UNITED STATES v. JUAN PICO

    015 Phil 549

  • G.R. No. 5524 March 21, 1910 - RAFAEL O. RAMOS v. HIJOS DE I. DE LA RAMA

    015 Phil 554

  • G.R. No. 5525 March 21, 1910 - EUGENIO PASCUAL LORENZO v. H. B. MCCOY

    015 Phil 559

  • G.R. No. 5673 March 21, 1910 - UNITED STATES v. TAN SAM TAO

    015 Phil 592

  • G.R. No. 4713 March 22, 1910 - CHATAMAL TEERTHDASS v. POHOOMUL BROTHERS

    015 Phil 605

  • G.R. No. 4901 March 22, 1910 - TEODORO OLGADO v. MUNICIPAL COUNCIL OF THE MUNICIPALITY OF LIPA

    015 Phil 623

  • G.R. No. 4907 March 22, 1910 - CARLOS GSELL v. PEDRO KOCH

    016 Phil 1

  • G.R. No. 4977 March 22, 1910 - DAVID TAYLOR v. MANILA ELECTRIC RAILROAD, ET AL.

    016 Phil 8

  • G.R. No. 5006 March 22, 1910 - ALEJANDRO POLICARPIO v. LUIS BORJA ET AL.

    016 Phil 31

  • G.R. No. 5022 March 22, 1910 - MURPHY v. INSULAR COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS

    016 Phil 34

  • G.R. No. 5149 March 22, 1910 - GREGORIO MACAPINLAC v. MARIANO ALIMURONG

    016 Phil 41

  • G.R. No. 5291 March 22, 1910 - UNITED STATES v. FACUNDO BARDELAS

    016 Phil 46

  • G.R. No. 5449 March 22, 1910 - MARIANO GONZALES ET AL. v. ALEJANDRO ROJAS

    016 Phil 51

  • G.R. No. 5464 March 22, 1910 - MARIA JOSE Y NARVAEZ ET A. v. PHILS. SQUADRON

    016 Phil 62

  • G.R. No. 5470 March 22, 1910 - LUIS SAENZ DE VIZMANOS ONG-QUICO v. YAP CHUAN ET AL.

    016 Phil 76

  • G.R. No. 5599 March 22, 1910 - MAURICE F. LOEWENSTEIN v. H. C. PAGE

    016 Phil 84

  • G.R. No. 5603 March 22, 1910 - WALTER E. OLSEN & CO. v. INSULAR COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS

    016 Phil 130

  • G.R. No. 4718 March 19, 1910 - SY JOC LIENG v. PETRONILA ENCARNACION

    016 Phil 137