THE UNITED STATES, complainant-appellee,
vs.
JOSE RAMOS, ET AL., defendants-appellants.

Republic of the Philippines
Supreme Court
Manila
En Banc

G.R. No. 1307
21 August 1903

Rafael Palma, for appellant.
Solicitor General Araneta, for appellee.

WILLARD, J.:

Anacleta, the daughter of Jose Ramos, having defied Pascual Rodriguez to come out of his house, the latter left it and upon the stairway met Jose and his three sons. Mariano and Rufino were in front and Jose and Andres behind them. Pascual was attacked by Mariano with a bolo and by Rufino with a club. He lost his left hand by a blow from the bolo, and was knocked senseless to the ground by a blow from the club given by Rufino. The court below acquitted Jose and Andres, and the case is not before us as to them. Mariano was sentenced to four years nine months and eleven days’ imprisonment because his blow deprived the complaining witness of his hand; and Rufino was sentenced to four months’ imprisonment because his blow only caused a contusion on the head. In thus discriminating between the two we think that the court erred. The two defendants attacked Pascual at the same time; they were joint participants in the aggression and each is responsible for the result. (Art. 13, Penal Code.)

The aggravating circumstance of nocturnity should not be taken into consideration, for it is evident from the case that the defendants did not select the hour of 8 p. m. for the commission of the offense because it was then dark.

There being neither aggravating nor extenuating circumstances, the penalty should be inflicted in the medium grade.

The judgment is reversed and each of the defendants is convicted of lesiones graves, defined and punished in article 416, 2, of the Penal Code, and sentenced to the penalty of four years nine months and ten days of prision correccional, to pay Pascual Rodriguez an indemnity of 500 Philippine pesos, and to half of the costs of the first instance and the costs of this instance.

Arellano, C.J., Torres, Cooper, Mapa, and McDonough, JJ., concur.

Trackback(0)
Comments (0)add comment

Write comment
You must be logged in to post a comment. Please register if you do not have an account yet.

busy

Latest Comments

Mumar vs. Dieparine
What an interesting case! Thanks for uploading! smiley
2009 Bar Exam results released
Congratulations to all who passed!
Alconaba, et al. vs. Abinez
This case is pretty short, but interesting nonethe
The Rule on the Writ of Habeas Data
Testing the new comments

Twitter

Site redesign 90% finished. Started major revamp of community platform. Check it out the new site! http://bit.ly/ceZVAW

by The Corpus Juris Friday, 23 April 2010 02:38

Facebook Connect

Announcements

The web development team is currently doing a major revamp of both the site’s presentation and underlying web frameworks. Expect to see some reduced functionality and all-around quirks while the code is sorted out. We promise you’ll be pleasantly surprised when we’re finished!

Visitors Statistics

Visits [+/-]
Today:
Yesterday:
Day before yesterday:
68
297
414

-117
This week:
Last week:
Week before last week:
365
2964
3777

-813
This month:
Last month:
Month before last month:
2111
13734
15236

-1502
This year:
Last year:
103245
96384
+6861

All visits
Since launch 229 976