ChanRobles™ Virtual Law Library | chanrobles.com™  
Main Index Law Library Philippine Laws, Statutes & Codes Latest Legal Updates Philippine Legal Resources Significant Philippine Legal Resources Worldwide Legal Resources Philippine Supreme Court Decisions United States Jurisprudence
Prof. Joselito Guianan Chan's The Labor Code of the Philippines, Annotated Labor Standards & Social Legislation Volume I of a 3-Volume Series 2019 Edition (3rd Revised Edition)
 

 
Chan Robles Virtual Law Library
 









 

 
UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE
 

 
PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE
 

   
October-1916 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. 11813 October 6, 1916 - UNITED STATES v. HIGINIO SANTIAGO

    035 Phil 20

  • G.R. No. 11512 October 11, 1916 - UNITED STATES v. BINAYOH

    035 Phil 23

  • G.R. Nos. 11544 & 11545 October 11, 1916 - UNITED STATES v. DANIEL I. SOBREVINAS

    035 Phil 32

  • G.R. No. 10662 October 12, 1916 - ENGRACIO LAURENCIO v. INSULAR COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS

    035 Phil 37

  • G.R. No. 11524 October 12, 1916 - GOV’T. OF THE PHIL. ISLANDS v. EL MONTE DE PIEDAD Y CAJA DE AHORROS DE MANILA

    035 Phil 42

  • G.R. No. 11549 October 12, 1916 - UNITED STATES v. JOSE CAMPOS RUEDA, ET AL

    035 Phil 50

  • G.R. No. 11416 October 14, 1916 - UNITED STATES v. WAYNE SHOUP, ET AL

    035 Phil 56

  • G.R. No. 11490 October 14, 1916 - ALHAMBRA CIGAR, ET AL v. COMPANIA GEN. DE TABACOS DE FILIPINAS

    035 Phil 62

  • G.R. No. 10439 October 17, 1916 - GAN TINGCO v. SILVINO PABINGUIT

    035 Phil 81

  • G.R. No. 11226 October 17, 1916 - JOSE CASTILLO v. EULALIO BELISARIO

    035 Phil 89

  • G.R. No. 11676 October 17, 1916 - UNITED STATES v. ANDRES PABLO

    035 Phil 94

  • G.R. No. 11451 October 19, 1916 - UNITED STATES v. DOMINGO PEREZ, ET AL

    035 Phil 102

  • G.R. No. 8883 October 20, 1916 - FRANCISCA GONZALEZ, ET AL v. JOAQUIN GONZALEZ MONDRAGON

    035 Phil 105

  • G.R. No. 10169 October 23, 1916 - RUPERTO MONTINOLA v. JUAN TUASON

    035 Phil 113

  • G.R. No. 10044 October 24, 1916 - MANILA RAILROAD CO. v. MARIA AGUILAR, ET AL.

    035 Phil 118

  • G.R. No. 8703 October 26, 1916 - NAZARIO MARCELO v. CLEMENCIO MANIQUIS

    035 Phil 134

  • G.R. No. 11589 October 26, 1916 - UNITED STATES v. LORENZO ADOR DIONISIO

    035 Phil 141

  • G.R. No. 8160 October 27, 1916 - MARCOS DE LA CRUZ v. RAMON FABIE, ET AL.

    035 Phil 144

  • G.R. Nos. 10463 & 10440 October 27, 1916 - ROCHIRAM DHARAMDAS, ET AL. v. GOPALDAS HAROOMALL, ET AL.

    035 Phil 183

  • G.R. No. 10596 October 27, 1916 - ANGELO ROJAS, ET AL. v. DIRECTOR OF LANDS

    035 Phil 196

  • G.R. No. 11413 October 28, 1916 - FAUSTINO LICHAUCO, ET AL. v. RAYMUNDA SORIANO

    035 Phil 203

  • G.R. No. 11439 October 28, 1916 - UNITED STATES v. EDUARDO ELICANAL

    035 Phil 209

  • G.R. No. 11728 October 28, 1916 - MARCELINA CABUÑAG v. VICENTE JOCSON

    035 Phil 220

  • G.R. No. 11718 October 31, 1916 - UNITED STATES v. LORENZO MACASAET

    035 Phil 226

  •  





     
     

    G.R. No. 11451   October 19, 1916 - UNITED STATES v. DOMINGO PEREZ, ET AL<br /><br />035 Phil 102

     
    PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

    SECOND DIVISION

    [G.R. No. 11451. October 19, 1916. ]

    THE UNITED STATES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. DOMINGO PEREZ and ERNESTO PEREZ, Defendants-Appellants.

    Gregorio Araneta for Appellants.

    Attorney-General Avanceña for Appellee.

    SYLLABUS


    1. "LESIONES" ; EVIDENCE; GRAVITY OF WOUNDS. — In weighing the evidence as to the seriousness of the wounds inflicted upon the complaining witness in a criminal case, in which the accused is charged with lesiones graves (the infliction of grave physical injuries), due weight should be given any manifestation of a disposition on the part of the complaining witness to exaggerate or overemphasize the gravity of his wounds, in order to avoid the danger of a conviction of the crime of lesiones graves (grave physical injuries), when in truth and in fact the offense committed may have been that of lesiones menos graves (less grave physical injuries) or merely lesiones leves (slight physical injuries).


    D E C I S I O N


    CARSON, J. :


    A careful review of all the evidence discloses nothing which would justify us in disturbing the findings of the trial court in so far as he holds that both the defendants and appellants in this case assaulted the complaining witness at the time and place and substantially in the manner charged in the information. We are satisfied that the evidence of record discloses that the defendants acted in concert in making the assault, and that both of them were therefore properly held criminally responsible for the commission of the offense.

    Our review of the evidence of record, however, aided by the careful and exhaustive analysis of the testimony of the witnesses by counsel for the defense in his written brief and oral argument, leaves us in grave doubt as to whether the physical injuries inflicted upon the complaining witness were so serious as to justify the conviction of the defendants and appellants of the crime of grave physical injuries as defined and penalized in subsection 4 of article 416 of the Penal Code, in accord with the findings of the trial judge in that regard, who was of opinion that the injured party "by reason of the physical injuries inflicted was ill and incapacitated for labor for more than 30 days" and imposed the penalty of one year and one day of prision correccional, with the accessory penalties prescribed by law.

    We are of opinion that while the evidence discloses that the physical injuries inflicted upon the complaining witness prevented him from working and necessitated medical attendance for more than one day, they were not of such a character as to necessitate medical attendance or to "prevent him from working" for more than seven days. There were introduced in evidence two certificates as to the nature of the wounds inflicted upon the injured party, one prepared on the day the assault was committed by the provincial health officer after an examination had at the instance of the provincial fiscal, and the other prepared at the instance of the injured man a considerable time after the injuries had been inflicted, and manifestly for use in the course of these proceedings, by a practice practitioner who was called in by the complaining witness to treat his wounds. Both these doctors were called to the witness stand and the testimony of the provincial health official was to the effect that the injuries inflicted were not of a very serious character and, as set forth in his certificate, prepared at the instance of the provincial fiscal on the day of the assault, would not require medical attention for more than a few days at most. The testimony of the private practitioner, if accepted without reserve, would lead to the conclusion that the injuries suffered by the complaining witness were of a very grave character and were such that the complaining witness was prevented from working for a period of considerably more than a month. His description of the injuries inflicted was emphatically corroborated by the testimony of the complaining witness himself.

    We think that the trial judge did not give due weight to the manifest desire on the part of the complaining witness to exaggerate and make much of the injuries received by him; and that in accepting the testimony of the private practitioner as against that of the provincial health officer, he overlooked a number of inconsistencies between the statements made in the certificate prepared by the private practitioner and his testimony on the witness stand. These inconsistencies are such as to give rise to the brief that this witness was either consciously or unconsciously influenced by a partisan desire to sustain the contentions of his patient, the complaining witness or that in preparing his certificate some time after assault was committed and after he had stopped treating his patient, and in his testimony on the witness stand, he was speaking from memory without any very distinct recollection of the precise character of the nature of the wounds as to which he testified. The testimony of the provincial health officer, verifying the contents of the certificate prepared on the day of the assault, is so clear, and consistent, and evidently without bias, as to make it impossible for us to hold beyond a reasonable doubt that he was less accurate than the practitioner in his description and recollection of the nature of the injuries suffered by the complaining witness.

    We conclude that the judgment convicting and sentencing the accused of the crime of grave injuries as defined and penalized in paragraph 4 of article 416 of the Penal Code should be reversed; that both the defendants and appellants should be convicted of the misdemeanor defined and penalized in article 587 of the Penal Code; and that they should be sentenced to 15 days of arresto menor and the payment of the costs in the Court of First Instance, with the costs of this instance de officio. So ordered.

    Torres, Johnson, Moreland, Trent, and Araullo, JJ., concur.

    G.R. No. 11451   October 19, 1916 - UNITED STATES v. DOMINGO PEREZ, ET AL<br /><br />035 Phil 102


    Back to Home | Back to Main

     

    QUICK SEARCH

    cralaw

       

    cralaw



     
      Copyright © ChanRobles Publishing Company Disclaimer | E-mail Restrictions
    ChanRobles™ Virtual Law Library | chanrobles.com™
     
    RED