G.R. No. L-3967
THE UNITED STATES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. SANTIAGO MAQUILAN, defendant-appellant.
February 20, 1908

FACTS:
On May 1, 1905, at about 10 p.m., municipal policemen Leoncio Robles and Gregorio Villanueva were patrolling the barrio of Sumag, Bacolod, when they encountered Santiago Maquilan and Tiburcio Delgado fighting with sticks. The policemen intervened, separated them, and ordered them to follow to be placed at the disposal of the barrio representative. Delgado complied, but Maquilan refused to walk and sat on the ground. As the policemen took hold of Maquilan’s hands to compel him to come along, Jose Maquilan, Santiago’s brother, appeared and confronted Delgado. Policeman Villanueva released Santiago Maquilan to prevent another quarrel between the brother and Delgado. Seizing this opportunity, Santiago Maquilan attacked policeman Leoncio Robles with a penknife, wounding him in the left side. Maquilan then fled to his house and locked himself in. The wound sustained by Robles healed in twenty days.

The provincial fiscal filed a complaint against Santiago Maquilan for the crime of attempt against an agent of the authorities. The Court of First Instance convicted Maquilan, sentencing him to two years, four months, and one day of prision correccional, along with a fine of 625 pesetas. Maquilan appealed this judgment.

ISSUE:
1. Whether Santiago Maquilan is guilty of the crime of attempt with arms against an agent of the authorities.
2. Whether a mitigating circumstance should be applied in the commission of the crime.
3. Whether the petition for a new trial should be granted.

RULING:
The Supreme Court AFFIRMED the judgment of the Court of First Instance.

1. Guilty of Attempt Against Agent of Authorities: The Court found that Santiago Maquilan committed the crime of attempt with arms against an agent of the authorities, as defined and punished under articles 249, No. 2, and 250, No. 1, of the Penal Code. The policemen were performing their official duties by intervening in a fight and attempting to bring the combatants before local authorities for a punishable offense. Maquilan’s act of resisting arrest and wounding a policeman with a penknife to facilitate his escape constituted a direct aggression against an agent of the authorities while the latter was in the performance of duty. The Court dismissed Maquilan’s defense of being flogged by the policemen, finding it unsupported by credible evidence, and noted that Maquilan himself acknowledged that the individuals were policemen.

2. Mitigating Circumstance Applied: The Court considered mitigating circumstance No. 7 of Article 9 of the Penal Code, which relates to acting under an impulse that naturally produces loss of reason and self-control. This was applied because Maquilan’s aggression occurred immediately after he had been engaged in a fight with Delgado and had just received a blow that wounded him, which likely caused a temporary loss of reason and self-control. This mitigating circumstance was not offset by any aggravating circumstance.

3. New Trial Denied: The petition for a new trial was denied because the evidence sought to be introduced (affidavits from prosecution witnesses seeking to retract their testimony) was not genuinely new nor discovered after the trial. The Court viewed it as an attempt to introduce counter-evidence after the proceedings had closed, which indicated a lack of due diligence by the defense counsel. The existing record provided sufficient evidence for the conviction.