G.R. No. L-2137
FACTS:
The defendant-appellant, Domingo Baluyut, was convicted by the Court of First Instance of Pampanga for the crime of lesiones (physical injuries). The conviction arose from a bolo fight where the victim, Agustin Mercado, lost the index finger of his right hand. The trial judge, after hearing the case in Pampanga, left the province and later prepared and signed the judgment in Tarlac. The signed judgment was then sent by registered mail to the clerk of court in Pampanga, who received and promulgated it in open court in the presence of the accused. Baluyut appealed, contesting both the legal classification of the injury and the validity of the judgment’s promulgation. He argued that the judgment was void because the judge was not physically present in the province at the time of its promulgation, contrary to Section 41 of General Orders No. 58.
ISSUE:
1. Whether the loss of an index finger constitutes the mutilation of a “principal member” under Article 416(2) of the Penal Code or a “non-principal member” under Article 416(3).
2. Whether Sections 13 and 14 of Act No. 867, which allow a judge to sign and send a judgment to the clerk of court for promulgation after leaving the province where the case was tried, are applicable to criminal cases and constitute a valid repeal of Section 41 of General Orders No. 58.
RULING:
1. On the Classification of the Injury: The Supreme Court ruled that a finger is not a principal member of the body. The injury therefore falls under Article 416(3) of the Penal Code, which penalizes mutilation of a non-principal member. Consequently, the penalty imposed by the lower court was modified accordingly.
2. On the Validity of the Judgment’s Promulgation: The Supreme Court upheld the validity of the judgment’s promulgation. The Court ruled that:
Applicability: Sections 13 and 14 of Act No. 867 are applicable to both civil and criminal cases. The general language of Section 13 covers “all the cases,” and Section 14, which deals with civil procedure details like bills of exceptions, does not limit this general application.
Validity and Effect: The statute is a valid exercise of legislative power. It does not violate the due process guarantees or the rights of the accused under Section 5 of the Philippine Bill of 1902 (the Act of Congress of July 1, 1902). The accused is not deprived of any substantial right, as he can still exercise all remedies (e.g., move for a new trial, appeal) upon the judgment’s promulgation by the clerk. The law, in fact, benefits the accused by preventing lengthy delays in the promulgation of judgment, especially in provinces with infrequent court sessions.
* Repeal of Previous Law: To the extent of the conflict, Sections 13 and 14 of Act No. 867 impliedly repealed Section 41 of General Orders No. 58, thereby dispensing with the requirement of the judge’s physical presence at the promulgation for cases falling under the Act’s provisions.
The judgment of conviction was AFFIRMED, but with a modification of the penalty to one year, eight months, and twenty-one days of imprisonment, with an allowance for one-half of the appellant’s preventive imprisonment.