G.R. No. L-6503 - FEBRUARY 1911 - PHILIPPINE JURISPRUDENCE CASE NUMBERCASE TITLE G.R. No. L-6503February 27, 1911 United States vs. Chiong Songco G.R. No. L-6404February 27, 1911 United States vs. Magdalena Esquejo G.R. No. L-6116February 27, 1911 United States vs. Isidoro Alias, et al. G.R. No. L-5971February 27, 1911 Beatriz Nera, et al. vs. Narcisa Rimando G.R. No. L-6324February 25, 1911 United States vs. Jose Quebengco G.R. No. L-6385February 24, 1911 United States vs. Ciriaco Levente G.R. No. L-6369February 24, 1911 United States vs. Florencio Tacubanza G.R. No. L-5739February 24, 1911 United States vs. Candido Estacio G.R. No. L-5799February 23, 1911 United States vs. Carlos H. Acebedo G.R. No. L-6368February 21, 1911 United States vs. Bonifacio Divino G.R. No. L-6320February 21, 1911 United States vs. Mariano Caralipio, et al. G.R. No. L-6042February 21, 1911 United States vs. Jose P. De Castro, et al. G.R. No. L-6029February 21, 1911 Basilia Ahag vs. Telesforo Cabiling G.R. No. L-5903February 21, 1911 Maximo Calavia, et al. vs. Leoncia Calavia G.R. No. L-5063February 21, 1911 Felisa M. Presentacion Perez vs. Cornelio Melliza, et al. G.R. No. L-3817February 21, 1911 Go Changjo vs. Santiago Roldan Sy-Changjo G.R. No. L-5879February 18, 1911 In Re: Estate of Ramon E. Santos G.R. No. L-5687February 18, 1911 Fortunato R. Salindon vs. Felipe Zamora G.R. No. L-5977February 11, 1911 United States vs. Pedro Pacheco G.R. No. L-5487February 11, 1911 United States vs. Juan Pico G.R. No. L-6294February 10, 1911 United States vs. Leoncio Ballena G.R. No. L-6277February 10, 1911 Sydney D. Sugar vs. Insular Government G.R. No. L-6093February 10, 1911 Joaquin Celis vs. Warden of Bilibid G.R. No. L-5995February 10, 1911 Lucio Herrera vs. Ignacio Neis, et al. G.R. No. L-5523February 10, 1911 Angustia Saldivar, et al. vs. Municipality of Talisay G.R. No. L-6302February 7, 1911 United States vs. Miguel Villano G.R. No. L-6254February 7, 1911 United States vs. Mateo Navarro, et al. G.R. No. L-5724February 2, 1911 United States vs. Jesus Balmori, et al. G.R. No. L-5515February 1, 1911 Levy Hermanos vs. Pedro A. Paterno The Lawphil Project - Arellano Law Foundation, Inc. United States vs. Chiong Songco United States vs. Magdalena Esquejo United States vs. Isidoro Alias, et al. Beatriz Nera, et al. vs. Narcisa Rimando United States vs. Jose Quebengco United States vs. Ciriaco Levente United States vs. Florencio Tacubanza United States vs. Candido Estacio United States vs. Carlos H. Acebedo United States vs. Bonifacio Divino United States vs. Mariano Caralipio, et al. United States vs. Jose P. De Castro, et al. Basilia Ahag vs. Telesforo Cabiling Maximo Calavia, et al. vs. Leoncia Calavia Felisa M. Presentacion Perez vs. Cornelio Melliza, et al. Go Changjo vs. Santiago Roldan Sy-Changjo In Re: Estate of Ramon E. Santos Fortunato R. Salindon vs. Felipe Zamora United States vs. Pedro Pacheco United States vs. Juan Pico United States vs. Leoncio Ballena Sydney D. Sugar vs. Insular Government Joaquin Celis vs. Warden of Bilibid Lucio Herrera vs. Ignacio Neis, et al. Angustia Saldivar, et al. vs. Municipality of Talisay United States vs. Miguel Villano United States vs. Mateo Navarro, et al. United States vs. Jesus Balmori, et al. Levy Hermanos vs. Pedro A. Paterno The Lawphil Project - Arellano Law Foundation, Inc.
Republic of the Philippines
SUPREME COURT
Manila
EN BANC
G.R. No. L-6503 February 27, 1911
THE UNITED STATES,plaintiff-appellee,
vs.
CHIONG SONGCO,defendant-appellant.
Clarin and Alonso for appellant.
Acting Attorney-General Harvey for appellee.
CARSON,J.:
The trial court found and the evidence of record conclusively establishes that the defendant and appellant threw the contents of a bottle of sulphuric acid into the face and on the body of the complaining witness, inflicting wounds which resulted in the illness (enfermedad) of the injured man for more than thirty days. It was further proven that the attack was made treacherously (con alevosia), as that circumstance is defined in article 10 of the Penal Code, it having been made at night, from behind the shelter of a sheet of zinc, and at a time when the victim was wholly unprepared to make any defense, he not having any reason to anticipate an assault so unexpected and unusual.
The trial court found the defendant guilty of the crime oflesionesdefined in subsection 4 of article 416 read together with article 417 of the Penal Code, marked with the aggravating circumstance of the nocturnity, and sentenced him to imprisonment for 1 year and 1 day. But the commission of the crime having been marked with the qualifying circumstance of treachery, the special penalty prescribed in the last paragraph of article 416 should have been inflicted, that is to say, the penalty ofprision correccionalin its minimum and medium degree. The penalty should have been imposed in its medium degree, the commission of the offense not having been marked by aggravating or extenuating circumstances, the aggravating circumstance of nocturnity as found by the trial court being taken into consideration in the finding of the existence of the qualifying circumstance ofalevosia.
We should add that the crime as committed is not in any wise related to the offices defined and penalized in article 417 of the code, as found by the trial court, the provisions of which clearly relate to the use of poisons and the like in an entirely different manner.
The sentence imposed by the trial court is therefore reversed, and instead thereof, we sentence the defendant and appellant to two years ofprision correccional, together with the accessory penalties prescribed by law, and to the payment of the cost of both instances.
Arellano, C.J., Mapa, Moreland and Trent, JJ.,concur.