G.R. No. L-10319 - FEBRUARY 1915 - PHILIPPINE JURISPRUDENCE CASE NUMBERCASE TITLE G.R. No. L-10319February 26, 1915 United States vs. Crispina Ganzon G.R. No. L-10077February 26, 1915 United States vs. Jose G. Montalvo, et al. G.R. No. L-9999February 23, 1915 United States vs. Juan Oxiles, et al. G.R. No. L-8813February 23, 1915 Simon Ungson vs. Macario Basco G.R. No. L-9768February 20, 1915 United States vs. Eulalio Morelos G.R. No. L-8101February 19, 1915 Fernanda Casañas vs. Charles H. Walt G.R. No. L-9356February 18, 1915 C. S. Gilchrist vs. E. A. Cuddy, et al. G.R. No. L-9374February 16, 1915 Francisco del Val, et al. vs. Andres del Val G.R. No. L-9282February 13, 1915 united States vs. Agustin Clavera G.R. No. L-9840February 12, 1915 Compania General de Tabacos de Filipinas vs. Jose Felix Martinez, et al. G.R. No. L-9732February 12, 1915 United States vs. Lazaro H. Gonzales G.R. No. L-9449February 12, 1915 Bonifacia Manalo vs. Gregorio de Mesa G.R. No. L-8987February 12, 1915 A.M. Barretto vs. E.J. Lane G.R. No. L-8750February 12, 1915 Candido Centenera vs. Juan Garcia Palicio G.R. No. L-10495February 11, 1915 Manuel Mendoza vs. E.C. McCullough, et al. G.R. No. L-10289February 11, 1915 United States vs. Domingo Siaseto G.R. No. L-9964February 11, 1915 United States vs. Leon Bandido G.R. No. L-9298February 11, 1915 United States vs. Braulio de Vivar G.R. No. L-8576February 11, 1915 Vargas and Company vs. chan Hang Chiu, et al. G.R. No. L-8304February 11, 1915 Arsenio Camo vs. Jose Riosa Boyco G.R. No. L-9577February 10, 1915 United States vs. Tubban G.R. No. L-9514February 10, 1915 United States vs. Maximo Ledesma, et al. G.R. No. L-9227February 10, 1915 Lius S. Versoza vs. Petrona Nicolas G.R. No. L-8405February 10, 1915 Francisco Galian vs. State Assurance Company, Ltd. G.R. No. L-9767February 5, 1915 Francisca Tagal vs. C.D. Johnston, et al. G.R. No. L-10355February 4, 1915 Government of the Philippine Islands vs. Pedro Concepcion, et al. G.R. No. L-9990February 1, 1915 Matea Capunu vs. Julio Llorente, et al. G.R. No. L-9935February 1, 1915 Yu Tek and Co. vs. Basilio Gonzales The Lawphil Project - Arellano Law Foundation, Inc. United States vs. Crispina Ganzon United States vs. Jose G. Montalvo, et al. United States vs. Juan Oxiles, et al. Simon Ungson vs. Macario Basco United States vs. Eulalio Morelos Fernanda Casañas vs. Charles H. Walt C. S. Gilchrist vs. E. A. Cuddy, et al. Francisco del Val, et al. vs. Andres del Val united States vs. Agustin Clavera Compania General de Tabacos de Filipinas vs. Jose Felix Martinez, et al. United States vs. Lazaro H. Gonzales Bonifacia Manalo vs. Gregorio de Mesa A.M. Barretto vs. E.J. Lane Candido Centenera vs. Juan Garcia Palicio Manuel Mendoza vs. E.C. McCullough, et al. United States vs. Domingo Siaseto United States vs. Leon Bandido United States vs. Braulio de Vivar Vargas and Company vs. chan Hang Chiu, et al. Arsenio Camo vs. Jose Riosa Boyco United States vs. Tubban United States vs. Maximo Ledesma, et al. Lius S. Versoza vs. Petrona Nicolas Francisco Galian vs. State Assurance Company, Ltd. Francisca Tagal vs. C.D. Johnston, et al. Government of the Philippine Islands vs. Pedro Concepcion, et al. Matea Capunu vs. Julio Llorente, et al. Yu Tek and Co. vs. Basilio Gonzales The Lawphil Project - Arellano Law Foundation, Inc.
Republic of the Philippines
SUPREME COURT
Manila
EN BANC
G.R. No. L-10319 February 26, 1915
THE UNITED STATES,plaintiff-appellee,
vs.
CRISPINA GANZON,defendant-appellant.
Alfredo Chicote for appellant.
Attorney-General Avanceña for appellee.
CARSON,J.:
This is an appeal from a judgment of the Court of First Instance of Bataan, convicting the defendant and appellant of the crime ofinjurias graves(grave insults), and sentencing her to six months and one day ofdestierro, whereby she is denied the right to approach within a radius of twenty-five kilometers [from] the municipal building of the town of Abucay, and further to pay a fine of 225 pesetas and the costs of the trial.
After a careful review of all the evidence of record we think it is clear that the defendant, a woman who kept a tienda in her native town, had a bitter altercation with the complaining witness of this case, a woman named Maximina Mina; that in the course of this quarrel offensive and scurrilous epithets were hurled by each of the parties against the other in the heat of passion and without taking thought of the highly offensive character of the language used. We are satisfied that this offensive language was not intended to be taken in its literal sense, and that neither of the parties so understood it. They seem simply to have searched their memories for insulting and offensive expressions by which they could relieve their feelings of rage and animosity. Doubtless if some of the language used were deliberately applied by one woman with reference to another, it would constitute the grave insults (injurias graves) mentioned in the statute, but we think that used as this language was, without any reference to its real meaning and under all the circumstances, it should be treated rather as language constituting the misdemeanor defined and penalized in article 589 of the Penal Code.
The conduct of which this defendant was shown to be guilty amounted, to our mind, to a mere misdemeanor, and the charges against her should property have been brought in the court of the justice of the peace.
We conclude therefore that the judgment convicting her of the crime ofinjurias gravesshould be reversed, and in lieu thereof we find her guilty of the misdemeanor defined in article 589, subsection 1, and sentence her to pay a fine of 25 pesetas, with the costs of both instancesde officioexcept that defendant will be required to pay the costs of ajuicio verbal, this is to say, the legal costs taxed in all cases of conviction upon a prosecution for misdemeanor in the courts of the justices of the peace. So ordered.
Arellano, C.J., Torres, Johnson, Moreland, Trent and Araullo, JJ.,concur.