Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1911 > March 1911 Decisions > G.R. No. 6378 March 20, 1911 - UNITED STATES v. PELAGIO CAPA, ET AL.

019 Phil 125:




PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

EN BANC

[G.R. No. 6378. March 20, 1911.]

THE UNITED STATES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. PELAGIO CAPA and AURELIO CARIÑO (alias CALIXTO), Defendants. AURELIO CARIÑO (alias CALIXTO), Appellant.

A. B. Ritchey, for Appellant.

Acting Attorney-General Harvey, for Appellee.

SYLLABUS


1. CRIMINAL PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE; RIGHTS OF THE ACCUSED; NON-PREJUDICIAL ERROR. — When the accused appears at the trial, pleads to the indictment, is represented by a defensor who is not a licensed attorney, and the trial is permitted to proceed without objection, none of the substantial rights of the defendant being violated, the mere fact that he was represented by a person who is not a regular practicing attorney, if it is error at all, is error without prejudice.

2. ID.; ASSAULT; BURDEN OF PROOF IS ON THE PROSECUTION. — In criminal cases the prosecution must prove beyond a reasonable doubt every essential element constituting the crime and upon which the conviction and punishment must be based. It is just as essential for the government to prove that the offended party, by reason of a blow inflicted by the appellant, lost the use of his arm, or was hindered in the use thereof, as it is to show that the appellant inflicted the blow.

3. ID.; ID.; BEST EVIDENCE; "LESIONES MENOS GRAVES." — The best evidence as to the gravity of a wound is that of the attending physician who, in this case, was not called as a witness. When the evidence does not show that the person assaulted lost the use of the injured member or was hindered in the use thereof, the offense must be classified as lesiones menos graves.


D E C I S I O N


TRENT, J.:


The defendants in this case, Pelagio Capa and Aurelio Cariño (alias Calixto); were charged in the Court of First Instance of the Province of Pangasinan with the crime of lesiones graves and sentenced, the first to one month and one day of arresto mayor, and the second to two years four months and one day of prision correccional, to the accessory penalties provided by law, to indemnify the offended party, and to each pay one-half of the costs. Aurelio Cariño alone appealed, and now insists that the trial court erred:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

1. In not informing the appellant of his right to be represented by counsel and in permitting Bernabe de Guzman, who is not a member of the bar, to appear and represent the appellant;

2. In finding that the proofs presented establish the guilt of the appellant beyond a reasonable doubt; and,

3. In qualifying the crime as lesiones graves and applying paragraph 2 of article 416 of the Penal Code.

When this case was called for trial in the court below the appellant appeared with his defensor, Bernabe de Guzman, pleaded not guilty, and the trial proceeded. At no time during the entire trial was any question raised about Guzman’s right or authority to appear and represent the Appellant. He cross-examined the Government’s witnesses and presented and examined his own. The appellant himself desired to be represented by Guzman. The trial was conducted in an orderly manner and none of the substantial rights of the appellant were prejudiced by being represented by the said Guzman. If the fact that the appellant was represented by an unlicensed attorney was error at all, it was error without prejudice to the Appellant.

"No accused person may be heard to challenge any process, pleading, proceeding, or decision in the courts of these Islands on account of any defect or irregularity which does not prejudice his substantial right upon the merits." (U. S. v. Ancheta, 15 Phil. Rep., 470.)

On the 26th of November, 1909, Francisco Garcia went to the house of Ciriaco Capucao, where the two defendants were living, for the purpose of getting a fighting cock which belonged to one Islao Bautista. On entering the house he made his wants known to Pelagio Capa, and after some few moments trouble ensued, resulting in Garcia receiving a blow over his right eye. Garcia got possession of the cock, and on leaving the house he was struck on the arm with a stick by the appellant, who, at that time appeared from under the stairway. Garcia immediately reported the matter to the local authorities.

The proofs do not clearly establish the nature nor the gravity of the wound inflicted by the Appellant. The doctor who dressed and treated this wound was not called as a witness. The only testimony on this point is that of the offended party and Ciriaco Capucao. As to the gravity of the wound and the time required for it to be cured, Garcia testified as follows:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"Q. Did the blows cause you any injuries?

"A. Yes sir.

"Q. How long did it take you to cure them.?

"A. More than ten days.

"Q. More than ten days, nothing more?

"A. My arm has not fully recovered up to the present time.

"Q. But it is now well, is it not?

"A. The outside of it, yes sir; but not the bones.

"Q. Then they are broken?

"A. The bone was fractured.

"Q. And are you able to grip with your hand?

"A. No sir.

"Q. Did a physician attend you?

"A. Yes sir.

"Q. How long did he treat you?

"A. Eight days.

"Q. And during those eight days that the doctor was treating you, were you able to work.?

"A. I was not able to work.

"Q. Are you now able to work with that hand?

"A. Not up to the present time, sir,.

x       x       x


"Q. Is your right arm useless?

"A. I can no longer work with that hand.

"Q. Why? What is the matter with it?

"A. The bone is fractured."cralaw virtua1aw library

Ciriaco Capucao, who examined the wound within a very few minutes after it had been inflicted, testified as follows:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"Q. You saw and examined these wounds?

"A. Yes sir.

"Q. What were they?

"A. I saw a small lesion on his right hand, and a contusion on the left eyebrow."cralaw virtua1aw library

The trial judge, adopting the testimony of the offended party, qualified the crime as that of lesiones graves, defined and punished under paragraph 2, article 416 of the Penal Code. It does not appear from his decision that he made any personal observations with reference to the condition of the offended party’s arm at the time of the trial. Said article 416 reads as follows:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"He who shall wound, bruise, or maltreat another, shall be punished as guilty of causing serious physical injury:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

x       x       x


"2. With that of 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 become useless for the occupation in which up to that time he had been habitually engaged."cralaw virtua1aw library

In criminal cases the prosecution must prove beyond a reasonable doubt every essential element constituting the crime and upon which the conviction and punishment is based. It was just as essential for the Government to prove that the offended party, by reason of the blow inflicted by the appellant, lost the use of his arm, or was hindered in the use thereof, as it was to show that the appellant inflicted said blow.

The offended party said that he was under the care of the doctor for eight days and that the exterior wound at the time of the trial was cured, but that the bones which had been fractured had not then been cured; while the other witness stated that when he examined the injured party he saw a small wound on his hand. The best evidence as to the gravity of this wound was that of the attending surgeon. For some reason, which does not appear in the record, the doctor was not called as a witness. It is clear that this testimony does not establish beyond a reasonable doubt that the offended party had lost the use of his arm, nor was hindered in the use thereof, by reason of that blow. He himself admits that he was under medical treatment for only eight days, and it is difficult to see why the doctor would have abandoned this treatment and the care of his patient until his arm had been completely cured.

Under these facts and circumstances the crime must be qualified as that of lesiones menos graves, as defined in article 418 of the Penal Code.

The judgment appealed from is, therefore, reversed, and in the absence of any extenuating or aggravating circumstances the appellant is sentenced to two months and one day of arresto mayor, and to pay the costs. So ordered.

Arellano, C.J., Mapa, 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-1911 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. Nos. L-5600 and 5602 March 2, 1911 - FROEHLICH & KUTTNER v. INSULAR COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS

    018 Phil 461

  • G.R. No. L-6064 March 2, 1911 - UNITED STATES v. SY-SUIKAO

    018 Phil 482

  • G.R. No. L-6289 March 2, 1911 - JOSE M. ARROYO v. MATIAS GRANADA

    018 Phil 484

  • G.R. No. L-6300 March 2, 1901

    UNITED STATES v. JACINTA MATA, ET AL.

    018 Phil 490

  • G.R. No. L-6411 March 2, 1911 - UNITED STATES v. PEDRO REYES

    018 Phil 495

  • G.R. No. L-6423 March 2, 1911 - UNITED STATES v. SIMEON QUIAOIT

    018 Phil 499

  • G.R. No. L-6457 March 2, 1911 - UNITED STATES v. ISIDRO MADAMBA

    018 Phil 501

  • G.R. No. L-6486 March 2, 1911 - UNITED STATES v. RAFAEL B. CATOLICO

    018 Phil 504

  • G.R. No. L-6510 March 2, 191

    UNITED STATES v. POLICARPIO GAVARLAN

    018 Phil 510

  • G.R. No. L-5969 March 3, 1911 - UNITED STATES v. CEFERINO BENITEZ, ET AL.

    018 Phil 513

  • G.R. No. L-6050 March 3, 1911 - UNITED STATES v. EMILIANO RAMOS

    018 Phil 518

  • G.R. No. L-6059 March 3, 1911 - UNITED STATES v. ARCADIO BERNALES

    018 Phil 525

  • G.R. No. L-6330 March 6, 1911 - UNITED STATES v. JUAN ORACION, ET AL.

    018 Phil 530

  • G.R. No. L-6493 March 9, 1911 - UNITED STATES v. AGATON NER

    018 Phil 534

  • G.R. No. L-5446 March 10, 1911 - MANUEL CEA v. MARIANO P. VILLANUEVA

    018 Phil 538

  • G.R. No. L-6409 March 10, 1911 - UNITED STATES v. TOMAS CRUZ

    018 Phil 543

  • G.R. No. L-5554 March 11, 1919

    JUAN NOEL v. GERONIMO GODINEZ, ET AL.

    018 Phil 546

  • G.R. No. L-5619 March 11, 1919

    ENGRACIO ORENSE v. CIRILIO JAUCIAN

    018 Phil 553

  • G.R. No. L-5752 March 11, 1911 - UNITED STATES v. LORENZO SISON

    018 Phil 557

  • G.R. No. L-6102 March 11, 1911 - UNITED STATES v. RUFINO DINEROS

    018 Phil 566

  • G.R. No. L-6110 March 11, 1911 - UNITED STATES v. NARCISO DUCO

    019 Phil 1

  • G.R. No. L-6177 March 11, 1911 - UNITED STATES v. JULIANA BRIOSO

    019 Phil 3

  • G.R. No. 6189 March 11, 1911 - FAUSTINO LICHAUCO v. TEODORO LIMJUCO, ET AL.

    019 Phil 12

  • G.R. No. L-6343 March 11, 1911 - UNITED STATES v. MANUEL RODRIGUEZ

    019 Phil 23

  • G.R. No. L-6445 March 11, 1911 - UNITED STATES v. SILVINO MADAMBA

    019 Phil25cralaw:red

  • G.R. No. L-6483 March 11, 1911 - UNITED STATES v. FILEMON MENDEZ

    019 Phil 28

  • G.R. No. L-4641 March 13, 1911 - SEMINARY OF SAN CARLOS v. MUNICIPALITY OF CEBU

    019 Phil 32

  • G.R. No. L-5741 March 13, 1911 - ESTANISLAUA ARENAS v. FAUSTO O. RAYMUNDO

    019 Phil 46

  • G.R. No. L-5358 March 16, 1911 - LEE LIONG v. ISIDORO HIZOLA

    019 Phil 57

  • G.R. No. L-5729 March 16, 1911 - VICENTE PADILLA v. SIMEON LINSANGAN

    019 Phil 65

  • G.R. No. 6219 March 16, 1911 - UNITED STATES v. MARTIN DOMINGO

    019 Phil 69

  • G.R. No. L-6407 March 16, 1911 - FRANCISCA FERNANDEZ v. R.M. SHEARER

    019 Phil 75

  • G.R. No. L-6410 March 16, 1911 - ALEJANDRO TECSON v. LA CORPORACION DE LOS PP. DOMINICOS

    019 Phil 79

  • G.R. No. L-5174 March 17, 1911 - CANDIDO PASCUAL v. EUGENIO DEL SAZ OROZCO

    019 Phil 82

  • G.R. No. L-5759 March 17, 191

    WALTER E. OLSEN & CO. v. MATSON

    019 Phil 102

  • G.R. No. 6485 March 17, 1911 - GUTIERREZ HERMANOS v. ORIA HERMANOS

    019 Phil 104

  • G.R. No. L-6002 March 18, 1911 - AMERICAN SURETY OF NEW YORK, ET AL. v. PRUDENCIO BATANGAN

    019 Phil 110

  • G.R. No. L-6061 March 18, 1911 - UNITED STATES v. MATEO PADO, ET AL.

    019 Phil 111

  • G.R. No. L-6082 March 18, 1911 - UNITED STATES v. ISIDRO VICENTILLO

    019 Phil 118

  • G.R. No. L-6231 March 18, 1911 - CELESTINO SYTIAR CLEMENTE v. AMBROSIO MARASIGAN

    019 Phil 120

  • G.R. No. 6365 March 18, 1911 - CANUTA GUERRERO v. EULALIO SINGSON, ET AL.

    019 Phil 122

  • G.R. No. 6469 March 18, 1911 - UNITED STATES v. EUSTAQUIO SIMBAHAN

    019 Phil 123

  • G.R. No. 6378 March 20, 1911 - UNITED STATES v. PELAGIO CAPA, ET AL.

    019 Phil 125

  • G.R. No. 6624 March 20, 1911 - UNITED STATES v. PEDRO BANILA

    019 Phil 130

  • G.R. No. L-6160 March 21, 1911 - UNITED STATES v. DANIEL NAVARRO

    019 Phil 134

  • G.R. No. L-6230 March 21, 1911 - A.R. HAGER v. ALBERT J. BRYAN

    019 Phil 138

  • G.R. No. 6276 March 21, 1911 - TOMASA M. SANTIAGO ET AL. v. MARCELA C. CRUZ

    019 Phil 145

  • G.R. No. 6344 March 21, 1911 - UNITED STATES v. MANUEL RODRIGUEZ, ET AL.

    019 Phil 150

  • G.R. No. 6481 March 21, 1911 - UNITED STATES v. QUINTIN MONDEJAR

    019 Phil 158

  • G.R. No. 5688 March 22, 1911 - HENRY BLUM v. MARIANO BARRETTO

    019 Phil 161

  • G.R. No. 6432 March 22, 1911 - UNITED STATES v. PEDRO BALAGTAS, ET AL.

    019 Phil 164

  • G.R. No. L-6008 March 23, 1911 - UNITED STATES v. FAUSTINA ORTIZ, ET AL.

    019 Phil 174

  • G.R. No. L-6128 March 23, 1911 - UNITED STATES v. SILVESTRE ARZADON

    019 Phil 175

  • G.R. No. 6427 March 23, 1911 - UNITED STATES v. CONSTANCIO FLORES

    019 Phil 178

  • G.R. No. 6491 March 23, 1911 - UNITED STATES v. TAMPACAN, ET AL.

    019 Phil 185

  • G.R. No. L-5815 March 24, 1911 - UNITED STATES v. PALA, ET AL.

    019 Phil 190

  • G.R. No. L-3026 March 25, 1911 - UNITED STATES v. MELCHOR BABASA

    019 Phil 198

  • G.R. No. L-5333 March 25, 1911 - UY ALOC, ET AL. v. CHO JAN LING, ET AL.

    019 Phil 202

  • G.R. No. L-5640 March 25, 1911 - BENIGNO GOITIA v. CHARTERED BANK OF INDIA

    019 Phil 206

  • G.R. No. L-5843 March 25, 191

    UNITED STATES v. CANUTO GUSTILO

    019 Phil 208

  • G.R. No. L-6016 March 25, 1911 - ANDRES PUNZALAN v. SISENANDO FERRIOLS

    019 Phil 214

  • G.R. No. L-6019 March 25, 1911 - JUAN N. ARAGON v. INSULAR GOVERNMENT

    019 Phil 223

  • G.R. No. 6372 March 27, 1911 - UNITED STATES v. PASCUAL MOLINA

    019 Phil 227

  • G.R. No. 6354 March 28, 1911 - UNITED STATES v. EDUARDO SALAZAR, ET AL.

    019 Phil 233

  • G.R. No. L-5939 March 29, 1911 - JOSE MARIN v. VALENTINA NACIANCENO

    019 Phil 238

  • G.R. No. 6760 March 29, 1911 - NICOLAS E. NUÑEZ v. CHAS. A. LOW

    019 Phil 244

  • G.R. No. 6044 March 30, 1911 - MANUEL M. PADIN v. R. E. HUMPHEMREYS, ET AL.

    019 Phil 254

  • G.R. No. 4877 March 31, 1911 - CRISANTO LICHAUCO v. CHO-CHUN CHAC

    019 Phil 258