THE UNITED STATES, PLAINTIFF AND APPELLEE, VS. ANSELMO EMPINADO, DEFENDANT AND APPELLANT.

In May, 1909, there were two cockpits owned and operated within sight of  each other, one  by Antonio Gavato, near the border line in the barrio of Malolos, in the municipality of Barili, and the other by the defendant, Anselmo Emplinado, in  the barrio of  Patria, municipality of Aloguinsan, Province of Cebu.   These two cockpits ran in competition with each other.  About 2 o’clock in the afternoon on the 30th. of May, 1909, one Serapio Tapic, being under the influence of tuba, an alcoholic beverage, and armed  with a sharp bolo or knife, unexpectedly entered the cockpit of Malolos, where there were a  great number  of people assembled,  and  wounded  Eugenio  Laoronilla  twice  in the back while the said Laoronilla was in a stooping position in the act of picking up  his cock.   As a direct consequence of these wounds the said Laoronilla was incapacitated for the  performance of his ordinary labor for the  period of one  and  one-half months.  Subsequently thereto  and on the 6th of September, 1909, the fiscal filed a complaint in the Court of First Instance of the Province of  Cebu  against the defendant, Anselmo  Empinado, charging  him with the crime of lesiones graves, alleging that the said defendant maliciously,  criminally,  and directly  forced  and induced the  said Serapio Tapic  to commit this crime of lesiones graves.  After hearing  the testimony  adduced and  the arguments presented the  defendant was found  guilty as charged in the complaint and was sentenced to one year and eight months’ prision correctional, with the corresponding accessory penalties, to indemnify the offended party in the sum of P22.50, and to pay the  costs.  From this judgment he appealed.

The prosecution presented four witnesses, the first being Serapio Tapic, 44 years of age, a laborer, and  a resident of Aloguinsan.  This witness  testified that on  the 30th of May, 1909, he had a conversation with the defendant  in his, the defendant’s, cockpit,  in which conversation the defendant asked him if he knew Antonio Gavato and his associates, to which he  replied  in the negative.  The defendant then said: “I wish to confer upon you a commission, which is as follows: Order must be disturbed in the cockpit of Gavato and when you arrive there wound any person.”  Witness further testified that at first he was reluctant to obey  this order,  but  the  defendant gave  him something to eat  and drink until he became intoxicated and then gave him a bolo and P10 and said: “Comply with what I have ordered, and in case you incur any responsibility I will be responsible to the courts, and as soon as you wound any person or persons return to me and I will defend you.”

The second witness, Regino Canocan, testified that he was in the defendant’s cockpit on that day and heard the conversation between the defendant and said Tapic; that he saw the defendant give Tapic tuba to drink and a bolo and heard him say to him:  “Serapio, in this moment you  have to comply with what I have ordered you to do.”

Benito Sabalando, another witness for the prosecution, stated that he was in partnership with  Antonio Gavato in the cockpit at Malolos and was in said cockpit on the 30th of May when Tapic entered and wounded Laoronilla; that after Tapic had wounded Laoronilla and was hurriedly returning to the cockpit of the defendant he,  in  company with the wounded man, pursued the said Tapic  to the defendant’s cockpit; that on arriving there they were ordered to halt by the defendant and asked where they were going.   They replied  that they were pursuing  Tapic,  The  defendant then said:  “Do you know this?” (waving a  revolver) and ordered them to lay  down their arms; that  they complied with this order on account of the fear of being shot.

The wounded  man, Laoronilla, after  relating what occurred in the cockpit of Gavato, which corroborates  in every detail the testimony of Tapic, then stated what had occurred, in exactly the same manner as a former witness, when  they arrived at  the defendant’s cockpit in pursuit of Tapic.

Notwithstanding the denial on the part of  the defendant and his attempt by means of witnesses to prove that he had nothing whatever to do with Tapic’s committing this crime, we think that his guilt has been established beyond peradventure of a doubt.

The defendant and Gavato were operating cockpits near each other.  There was considerable  competition between the owners of these two cockpits.  Gavato’s business was more prosperous than the defendant’s.  Tapic was in the defendant’s cockpit on May 30, 1909, and went direct from there to and entered the cockpit of Gavato, armed with a bolo, and wounded Laoronilla.   Tapic had no enmity against this wounded man, neither did he have any intention of injuring any particular person, but his  object was to disturb the people assembled there and  injure  Gavato’s business. After doing this he returned immediately to the defendant’s cockpit and sought his protection,  and the defendant did, in fact, protect him by means of a revolver.

Article 13 of the Penal Code provides:

“The following  are considered as principals:

*      *    *    *    *    *    *

“2. Those who directly force or induce others to execute it.”

Article 416 of the same code is as follows:

“He who shall wound, bruise, or maltreat another shall be’ punished as  guilty  of causing serious physical injuries.  *  *   *

“4. With that of arresto mayor in  its maximum degree to prision correctional in its minimum degree, if  such injuries should have occasioned the assaulted party an illness or disability for work lasting more than thirty days.”

In the commission  of  this crime there were present no aggravating or extenuating circumstances.

The court below properly applied the above provisions of law.  The judgment appealed  from is, therefore, affirmed, with costs  against the appellant.

Arellano,  C. J., Torres, Johnson,  and  Moreland, JJ., concur.