Home of ChanRobles Virtual Law Library

PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

EN BANC

[G.R. No. 40940. October 9, 1934. ]

THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. ALIPIO BALUBAR, Defendant-Appellant.

Etelboldo Valera, Virgilio Valera and Julio Borbon for Appellant.

Acting Solicitor-General Peña for Appellee.

SYLLABUS


1. CRIMINAL LAW; SERIOUS PHYSICAL INJURIES; LOSS OF FOUR TEETH CONSTITUTES DISFIGUREMENT. — One who unlawfully wounds another is responsible for the consequences of his act. If as a result thereof, the offended party is impaired in his appearance in such a way that the disfigurement cannot be removed by nature, the person causing the injuries is responsible for the disfigurement, and he is not relieved of that responsibility because the offended party might, if he had the means, lessen the disfigurement by some artificial contrivance. The offended party in the case at bar was twenty-five years old, and he was conspicuously disfigure by the loss of four front teeth. Therefore the defendant is guilty of a violation of subsection 3 of article 263 of the Revised Penal Code.

2. ID.; ID.; ID.; ERRONEOUS TRANSLATION IN ENGLISH TEXT OF SUBSECTION 3, ARTICLE 263, REVISED PENAL CODE. — The phrase "cualquier otro miembro" appearing in subsection 3 article 263, of the Revised Penal Code has been translated to read "any other part of his body." The Spanish text scarcely justifies that translation. "Cualquier otro miembro" is more accurately translated "any other members", meaning any other member than an eye, a hand, a foot, an arm, or a leg, which are those mentioned in subsection 2. "Deforme" is better translate "disfigured." In the case at bar four of the offended party’s incisors were broken off. The remaining portions of these teeth had to be removed. The result, as found by the trial judge, was a conspicuous disfigurement.

3. ID.; ID.; FORMER DECISIONS REVERSED. — The Rodas and Medina cases (G. R. NO. 31807 and G. R. No. 32113, promulgated February 7, 1930, not reported) were decided upon the finding that there was no disfigurement because the injuries were not permanent, since the teeth that were broken out could be substituted with artificial teeth. This was not a correct interpretation of the law. The injury contemplated by the Code is an injury that cannot be repaired by the action of nature, and if the loss of the teeth is visible and impairs the appearance of the offended party, it constitutes a disfigurement. The fact that he may, if he has the necessary means and so desires, have artificial teeth substituted for the natural teeth he has lost does not repair the injury, although it may lessen the disfigurement. The case of a child or an old person is an exception to the rule.


D E C I S I O N


VICKERS, J.:


The appellant was tried in the Court of First Instance of Abra on the following information:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"Que en o hacia el 14 de abril de 1933, en el Municipio de Bangued, Provincia de Abra, Islas Filipinas, el referido acusado voluntaria, ilegal y criminalmente y sin ningun motivo justificado, agredio y acometio con un pedazo de hierro llamado vulgarmente manigueta a Isidro Pizarro dandole un golpe con ello en la boca, y de resultas de dicho golpe el referido Isidro Pizarro sufrio una herida lacerada en el labio superior y se le rompieron dos dientes y se fracturaron otros dos, cuyas heridas se curaron en diez dias con aistencia facultativa y se causo al ofendido una deformidad permanente.

"Hecho cometido con infraccion de la Ley."cralaw virtua1aw library

After hearing the evidence the trial judge found that the defendant had committed the offense alleged in the information, with the aggravating circumstance of nocturnity, and sentenced him in accordance with subsection 3 of article 263 of the Revised Penal Code to suffer four years and two months of prision correccional and the accessory penalties provided by law, and to pay the costs.

The attorneys for the appellant have not made any assignments of error, but the following "relacion de hechos" :jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"1. Que en la noche del Viernes Santo de 1933 (1) estaba el acusado vigilando su truck, dentro de dicho truck a la sazon parado frente a la casa de su padre, y (2) pasaron carretones corriendo, y (3) el ofendido que era uno de los conductores de aquellos carretones, profirio malas e insultantes palabras contra dicho acusado y sus parientes, porque (4) en dicha ocasion dicho ofendido estaba borracho.

"2. Que el acusado, naturalmente ofendido por el insulto, bajo de su truck; sujeto el mecate del vacuno del carreton del ofendido Pizarro; estiro dicho mecate con fuerza; y el ofendido que estaba sentado en un lado del carreton (lado opuesto al en donde estaba el acusado), y que naturalmente sujetaba el otro extremo del mismo mecate, se tumbo en el carreton.

"3. Que el ofendido estaba sentado en el borde izquierdo de su carreton y el acusado aparecio hacia el lado derecho de dicho carreton y dicho carreton tiene una pared en forma de veranda que en la parte alta termina en una madera dur.

"4. Que el sitio es muy arbolado. Habia luna; pero es sitio arbolado.

"5. Que el golpe (sostenido por al acusacion como golpe de una manigueta, y por la defensa como efecto del choque que sufrio el ofendido al caer sobre el borde de su propio carreton) produjo (1) una ligera herida en el labio superior del ofendido, y (2) algunas pequeñas roturas de dientes, que todo fue curado en seis (6) dias.

"6. Que el ofendido, queriendo aprovecharse de la ocasion, sostenia que el acusado pagase al dentista para poner dientes de oro en lugar de los dientes que se le habian quebrado, proposicion que tuvo lugar un mes quizas despues del suceso; a la cual el acusado no accedio."cralaw virtua1aw library

It appears from the evidence that the defendant struck the offended party in the mouth with an iron instrument used for cracking the engine of a motor truck, thereby breaking four of the offended party’s front teeth and inflicting on his upper lip a wound which required medical treatment for six days. The incident occurred late at night. The offended party, accompanied by three girls, was driving an ox cart, preceded by the cart of Ambrosio Belandres. It was the night of Good Friday, and they were going home after seeing the procession in Bangued. The defendant stopped his motor truck in front of his father’s house, and when the two carts came up he got out and after asking Ambrosio Belandres for Isidro Pizarro, the offended party, went to the cart driven by Isidro Pizarro, and struck him with the piece of iron. The motive for the assault appears to have been the defendant’s resentment because the offended party had been a witness for Paulino Belandres in a case between Belandres and the defendant.

The foregoing facts are duly proved by the testimony of the offended party and Dolores Belandres, one of the offended party’s three companions. Dr. Jose Purugganan testified as to the injuries sustained by the offended party. The offended party had to have the broken teeth extracted because they ached and hurt his gums. The trial judge found that the offended party had a very noticeable disfigurement in the mouth at the time of the trial.

Testifying in his own behalf, the defendant declared that the offended party was drunk and insulted him; that upon hearing the insulting words he got out of his truck and caught hold of the rope on he ox driven by the offended party, and asked the offended party for an explanation; that he gave the rope a sudden jerk, and the offended party fell over in the cart; that the offended party and his companions then drove on, and the defendant returned to his truck. The defendant further testified that a month after the incident in question the offended party told him that he ought to pay for four gold teeth to take the place of the teeth that were broken, but that he declined to do so because he was not at fault; that this conversation took place more than ten days prior to the time when the offended party’s broken teeth were extracted. The offended party denied having any such conversation with the defendant. The contention of the defendant rests upon his uncorroborated testimony. The complaint was filed on April 19, 1933, or long prior to the date when the alleged conversation was claimed by the defendant to have taken place.

In our opinion the evidence fully sustains the findings of the trial judge, except as to the presence of the aggravating circumstance of nocturnity.

The principal question involved in this case is whether or not the physical injuries inflicted by the defendant upon the offended party constitute a violation of subsection 3 of article 263 of the Revised Penal Code, the Spanish text of which reads as follows:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"Con la pena de prision correccional en sus grados minimo y medio, si de resultas de las lesiones el ofendido hubiere quedado deforme, o perdido cualquier otro miembro o quedado inutilizado de el, o hubiere estado incapacitado para su trabajo o enfermo por mas de noventa dias."cralaw virtua1aw library

The official English translation is as follows:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"The penalty of prision correccional in its minimum and medium periods, if in consequence of the physical injuries inflicted, the person injured shall have become deformed, or shall have lost any other part of his body, or shall have lost the use thereof, or shall have been ill or incapacitated for the performance of the work in which he was habitually engaged for a period of more than ninety days."cralaw virtua1aw library

It will be noticed that the phrase "cualquier otro miembro" has been translated to read "any other part of his body." The Spanish text scarcely justifies that translation. "Cualquier otro miembro" is more accurately translated "any other member", meaning any other member than an eye, a hand, a foot, an arm, or a leg, which are those mentioned in subsection 2. "Deforme" is better translated "disfigured."

In the case at bar four of the offended party’s incisors were broken off. The remaining portions of these teeth had to be removed. The result, as found by the trial judge, was a conspicuous disfigurement.

The Supreme Court of Spain held in its decision of May 5, 1884, where the defendant threw a stone which injured the offended party in the mouth and caused him to lose four teeth, "que las lesiones que producen la perdida de cuatro dientes constituyen una verdadera deformidad irreparable por la accion reconstitutiva de la naturaleza" ; in the decision of October 29, 1886, where the accused struck the offended party with a stone and cause him to lose two incisors, it was held that "la perdida de dos incisivos constituye deformidad" ; in the decision of October 31, 1900, where the offended party suffered two wounds on the upper lip with the loss of three teeth, the Supreme Court of Spain said: "Considerando que declarado en la sentencia reclamada que de resultas de las lesiones causadas por Pedro Obrador a Cristobal Soler este quedo sin tres dientes con huella visible de su falta, es aplicable al caso el numero 3.
Top of Page