GR L 4960; (July, 1909) (Digest)
G.R. No. L-4960
THE UNITED STATES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. CIRIACO HERRERA, defendant-appellant.
July 17, 1909
FACTS:
After a fight and wrestling match, Silvestre Bautista and Ciriaco Herrera were separated. As Bautista was getting into his vehicle, Herrera followed him and wounded him in the right sacrolumbal region with a penknife. The injury necessitated medical attendance for more than eight days. Bautista testified that he was wounded in the buttock while already in the vehicle and saw Herrera running away with a penknife. The Court of First Instance of Manila found Herrera guilty of lesiones menos graves (less serious physical injuries) and sentenced him to three months of arresto mayor, P37 for medical expenses, and costs. Herrera appealed, arguing that the crime should only be a misdemeanor since the injured party was not incapacitated for work for more than eight days, and that mitigating circumstance No. 7 of Article 9 of the Penal Code (acting under powerful excitement) should be applied.
ISSUE:
1. Whether the crime should be classified as lesiones menos graves or a misdemeanor, given that the injured party required medical attendance for more than eight days but was not necessarily incapacitated for work for that period.
2. Whether mitigating circumstance No. 7 of Article 9 of the Penal Code (acting under powerful excitement) should be applied.
RULING:
1. The Supreme Court ruled that the crime was correctly classified as lesiones menos graves. While the injured party may not have been rendered unable to work, the fact that he required medical attendance for more than eight days is a sufficient reason to classify the deed as lesiones menos graves according to Article 418 of the Penal Code.
2. The Court held that mitigating circumstance No. 7 of Article 9 cannot be considered in this case. It is established jurisprudence that the excitement inherent in quarreling and coming to blows is not sufficient. For the circumstance to apply, it is necessary that the guilty party shall have acted under the impulse of special motives that may be classified according to existing circumstances, which were not present here.
Therefore, the judgment appealed from was affirmed, with costs against the appellant.