G.R. No. 1687 - JANUARY 1905 - PHILIPPINE JURISPRUDENCE CASE NUMBERCASE TITLE G.R. No. 1687January 31, 1905 United States vs. Maria Solis, et al. G.R. No. 1957January 30, 1905 United States vs. Saturnino Asilo G.R. No. 1958January 30, 1905 United States vs. Esteban Cabingan G.R. No. 1832January 28, 1905 United States vs. Martin Sosa, et al. G.R. No. 1541January 27, 1905 United States vs. Vicente Santillan G.R. No. 1828January 27, 1905 United States vs. Fermin Mangado G.R. No. 1737January 25, 1905 United States vs. Petronilo Patiño, et al. G.R. No. 1757January 25, 1905 United States vs. Domingo Lascano G.R. No. 1826January 25, 1905 United States vs. Pablo Gabriel G.R. No. 1827January 25, 1905 United States vs. Leonardo Santiago G.R. No. 1851January 23, 1905 United States vs. Saturnino Trinidad G.R. No. 1855January 23, 1905 United States vs. Catalino Cofrada G.R. No. 1989January 23, 1905 United States vs. Celedonio Nery G.R. No. 1222January 21, 1905 United States vs. Mateo Lapus, et al. G.R. No. 1767January 21, 1905 United States vs. Gavino Garcia G.R. No. 1692January 18, 1905 United States vs. Adriano Perdon G.R. No. 1874January 18, 1905 United States vs. Angel Ongtengco G.R. No. 1615January 16, 1905 United States vs. Andres Ascue G.R. No. 1536January 14, 1905 United States vs. Romulo Agas G.R. No. 1565January 14, 1905 United States vs. Jose Ner G.R. No. 2362January 14, 1905 Frank De L. Carrington vs. J. J. Peterson G.R. No. 1314January 12, 1905 United States vs. Jose Samson G.R. No. 1340January 12, 1905 United States vs. Claro Mendoza G.R. No. 1643January 12, 1905 United States vs. Saturnino de la Cruz, et al. G.R. No. 2246January 12, 1905 United States vs. Pedro Bailon G.R. No. 2094January 11, 1905 United States vs. Manuel Tomines G.R. No. 1287January 5, 1905 United States vs. Pedro Baguiao, et al. G.R. No. 1290January 5, 1905 United States vs. Regino Ayao, et al. G.R. No. 1523January 4, 1905 United States vs. Jacinto Sosa G.R. No. 1669January 4, 1905 United States vs. Esteban Evangelista G.R. No. 1945January 4, 1905 United States vs. Manuel Navarrete, et al. G.R. No. 1289January 3, 1905 United States vs. Anastasio Bosito, et al. The Lawphil Project - Arellano Law Foundation, Inc. United States vs. Maria Solis, et al. United States vs. Saturnino Asilo United States vs. Esteban Cabingan United States vs. Martin Sosa, et al. United States vs. Vicente Santillan United States vs. Fermin Mangado United States vs. Petronilo Patiño, et al. United States vs. Domingo Lascano United States vs. Pablo Gabriel United States vs. Leonardo Santiago United States vs. Saturnino Trinidad United States vs. Catalino Cofrada United States vs. Celedonio Nery United States vs. Mateo Lapus, et al. United States vs. Gavino Garcia United States vs. Adriano Perdon United States vs. Angel Ongtengco United States vs. Andres Ascue United States vs. Romulo Agas United States vs. Jose Ner Frank De L. Carrington vs. J. J. Peterson United States vs. Jose Samson United States vs. Claro Mendoza United States vs. Saturnino de la Cruz, et al. United States vs. Pedro Bailon United States vs. Manuel Tomines United States vs. Pedro Baguiao, et al. United States vs. Regino Ayao, et al. United States vs. Jacinto Sosa United States vs. Esteban Evangelista United States vs. Manuel Navarrete, et al. United States vs. Anastasio Bosito, et al. The Lawphil Project - Arellano Law Foundation, Inc.
Republic of the Philippines
SUPREME COURT
Manila
EN BANC
G.R. No. 1687 January 31, 1905
THE UNITED STATES,complainant-appellee,
vs.
MARIA SOLIS, ET AL.,defendants-appellants.
C. W. O'Brien for appellants.
Office of the Solicitor-General Araneta for appellee.
TORRES,J.:
In a complaint dated September 21, 1903, Maria Solis, Fernando Solis, and Maria Castellon were charged withlesiones graves. The complaint stated that at about 8 o'clock in the morning of June 12 of said year Gregoria Magabilin was at the house of Maria Solis at the latter's invitation; that Maria Solis asked Magabilin if she had said that the land in which her father was working had not been granted by her, Maria Solis, but by her brother, Victoriano Solis; that Magabilin replied she had not said such a thing, and that then and there the servant of the house, Maria Castellon, struck Gregoria Magabilin in the mouth with her fist; that Victoriano intervened in the affray and tried to separate them; that when the injured party was trying to defend herself, Victoriano slapped her aggressor; that Fernando Solis in his tun struck Magabilin twice with his fist in the temples and then Maria Solis, taking her by the hair, dragged her along the ground and bit her in the left ear. As a result of this bite, part of the ear was removed, and the pair of earrings which Magabilin had, valued at $1.25, disappeared. These facts are clearly proven. They have all the characteristics of the crime oflesiones gravesprovided for in subsection 3 or article 416 of the Penal Code.
As a result of the affray and of the injury suffered, Gregoria Magabilin was permanently disfigured because of the loss of the lobule of the left ear. The physician, who recognized the injured party, testified to this on the trial of the case. The three defendants pleaded not guilty, and nothing was offered of any importance in their defense. Notwithstanding that the witness for the prosecution, Victoriano, did not corroborate in full the statements of Gregoria Magabilin, the injured party, due, perhaps, to the relationship existing between him and one of the defendants, yet he corroborates the fact of the fight and of the injury suffered by Magabilin and caused by Maria Castellon. We have to admit the statements of Gregoria Magabilin, as true, because they contain details which are more in conformity with the truth and with the result of the fight. It does not appear from the proof that the aggression against the injured party was the result of a conspiracy on the part of the aggressors, hence each of them is individually responsible for his acts and for the damage caused thereby to the injured party. Maria Castellon and Fernando Solis only struck Gregoria Magabilin with their fists, one after the other, and their blows did not produce any serious consequences. But Maria Solis having ill-treated the injured party, and having dragged her along the ground by the hair, inflicted thelesion gravefor which she is not prosecuted. She caused this by having bitten her, therefore Maria Solis is the only person liable for thelesion gravewhich was occasioned to Maria Magabilin. The other two defendants can not be considered as participants in this crime. They can only be punished for ill treatment, which is a misdemeanor. The injury caused to the left ear of Gregoria Magabilin was not the result of the joint ill treatment of Fernando Solis, Maria Castellon, and Maria Solis, but resulted from the sole act of Maria Solis, as the evidence establishes.
We agree with the opinion of the Court of First Instance as regards taking into consideration the two extenuating circumstances provided for in subsections 3 and 7 of article 9 of the Penal Code, and also that defined in article 11 of the same code. There are no aggravating circumstances to counterbalance the effect of the two extenuating circumstances, and therefore the defendant Maria Solis should be punished with the penalty next lower than that provided by law in the minimum degree.
Therefore, for the reasons above stated, we are of the opinion that the judgment below should be affirmed as regards Maria Solis, with one-third of the costs. We reverse the judgment below as regards Fernando Solis and Maria Castellon, who are hereby acquitted of said crime, but as a punishment for their misdemeanor or ill treatment, and for their correction, we impose upon them a fine of P10 pesos each, with subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency, the costs to bede oficio.
This case to be remanded to the court below with a certified copy of this decision and of the judgment which shall be rendered in accordance herewith. So ordered.
Arellano, C.J., Mapa, Johnson and Carson, JJ.,concur.