THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS, PLAINTIFF AND APPELLEE, VS. ALIPIO BALUBAR, DEFENDANT AND APPELLANT.

The appellant was tried in the Court of First Instance of Abra on the following information:

“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, agredo y
acometio con un pedazo de hierro llamado vulgarmente manigueta a Isidro
Pizarro dindole 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 asistencia facultativa y se
causo al ofendido una deformidad permanente.

“Hecho cometido con infraction de la Ley.”

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 “relation de hechos”:

“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 carretdn tiene una pared en forma de veranda que
en la parte alta termina en una madera dura.

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

“5. Que el golpe (sostenido por la 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 pequenas
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.”

It appears from the evidence that the defendant struck the offended
party in the mouth with an iron instrument used for cranking 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 hid truck and caught hold of the rope on
the 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:

“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 incapacit&do para su trabajo habitual o
enfermo por mas de noventa dias.”

The official English translation is as follows:

“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.”

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 reconstitute de la naturaleza”; in
the decision of October 29, 1886, where the accused struck the offended
party with a stone and caused 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 loss1 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.° del articulo 431 del Codigo
Penal, porque a causa de la lesion ha quedado permanente deformidad al
ofendido por notoria imperfeccion de su regularidad personal”; in the
decision of January 12, 1903, where the offended party suffered the
loss of a molar and two incisors, one from the upper jaw and one from
the lower, it was held that “Considerando que Meforme,’ segun el
Diccionario de la Academia, es lo mismo que desfigurado, feo o
imperfecto, y por ello existe deformidad, en la acepcion dramatical y
juridica de la palabra, cuando de resultas de las lesiones padecidas
queda el ofendido con huellas visibles de alguna imperfeccion o
irregularidad en su persona; y, como evidentemente la produce la falta
de dos incisivos, infringe la sentencia, al dejar de estimarlo, el
artfculo que se cita en el recurso, e incurre en el error de derecho
que sirve de fundamento a este”; in its decision of May 16, 1908 the
Supreme Court of Spain said :”Considerando que el Tribunal sentenciador
ha procedido con acierto al calificar el hecho justificable a que el
presente recurso se refiere, puesto que la perdida de cuatro dientes
que Antonio Saraldi sufrid por efecto de los golpes que el procesado le
diera, constituye una imperfeccion permanente y visible que determina
una verdadera deformidad, con arreglo al significado gramatical y
juridico de esta palabra, sin que la mayor o menor facilidad que el
lesionado pueda tener para disimular el aludido defecto, despoje a la
Iesion del caracter legal que por su propia naturaleza le corresponde,
etc.”, and in that of January 15,1910: “Oonsiderando que es
improcedente el recurso, porque habiendose declarado por la Sala
sentenciadora que a Eduardo Fernandez se le curaron, con asistencia
facultativa, a los veinticuatro dias, las lesiones que al mismo le
fueron inferidas, pero quedandole deformidad por la perdida de tres
molares, es evidente que el Tribunal sentenciador aplico con acierto la
disposicion legal que por el recurrente se impugna, pues que la perdida
de aquellos produce irregularidad fisica visible y determinante de la
expresada deformidad, etc.”, and in that of February 11, 1910:
“Considerando que la deformidad constitutiva de lesion grave a que se
refiere el articulo 431, ntimero 3.° del Codigo Penal, es un concepto
de hecho sometido a la apreciacion del Tribunal que conoce de las
pruebas, pues para juzgar con acierto acerca de la extension y efectos
de aquella en orden a la alteracidn que produce en la forma regular de
quien la sufre o en la de alguna parte visible de su cuerpo, se
requiere el examen personal y directo, como principal factor de
conocimiento, de donde se deduce que una vez estimada de visu
por el juzgador la deformidad, solo cabra impugnarla con exito en
casacidn cuando de los demas elementos materiales que la sentencia
contenga aparezca de modo claro haberse incurrido en error el formular
esa conclusion: Considerando esto sentado, que al afirmar la Audiencia
sentenciadora que por la perdida de un canino y tres molares quedo el
lesionado deforme, expresa un juicio jobre la prueba, que es forzoso
respetar, no existiendo como no existen datos que permitan combatirlo,
tanto mas cuanto que la falta de un canino, unido a la de tres molares,
siquiera dicha Audiencia califique esta ultima de deformidad interior,
frase que se presta a distintas interpretaciones, puede determinar,
atendidas las circunstancias del sujeto, una irregularidad o una
imperfeccion, apreciable a simple vista en el rostro del ofendido,
hipotesis que impide en el presente caso modificar el criterio del
inferior, y con mas razon si se tiene en cuenta que la Ley Penal
vigente no exige, como exigfa la anterior, que la deformidad sea
notable, desprendtendose de aqui, como logica consecuencia, la
necesidad de mantener la calificacidn que en el primer motivo del
recurso se impugna, sin que obste para ello que el defecto de que se
trata se pueda suplir, segun el recurrente alega, por medios
artificiales, pues ni esos medios estan al alcance de todos, ni es
dable obligar a nadie a utilizarlos, etc.”

On the other hand, in its decision of October 15,1903, the Supreme
Court of Spain held that the loss of an incisor by a woman about
seventy years old does not constitute the disfigurement to which the
law refers. The court said: “Considerando que la deformidad fisica que
produce la perdida de dientes incisivos, por la irregularidad en las
formas que de esta falta resulta, hay que apreciarla con relacion a la
edad y otras circunstancias que pueden concurrir en cada caso concrete,
asi como a las declaraciones de hecho del Tribunal sentenciador; y
afirmandose en la sentencia reclamada que la ofendida Maria Martinez
sufrio unas lesiohes, que se curaron a loscatorce dias de asistencia
facultatiya, con fractura de un incisivo, tratandose de una persona
proxima a los setenta anos, esta falta no tiene en este caso eficacia
bastante para producir el efecto juridico de aumentar la penalidad como
constitutivo de un delito de lesiones graves, habiendo procedido con
acierto el Tribunal sentenciador al calificar y penar el hecho procesal
como delito de lesiones menos graves, conforme, en caso analogo, lo ha
resuelto esta Sala en sentencia de 12 de enero de 1892.”

In the case of People vs.
Rodas (G. R. No. 31807, promulgated February 7,1930, not reported),
where two of the offended party’s lower incisors were knocked out, a
division of this court consisting of four members refused to follow the
decisions of the Supreme Court of Spain on the ground that they were
obsolete because of the progress in dental science, and held that in
the United States and the Philippine Islands the loss of one or more
teeth need not be taken as a permanent physical abnormality; and in the
case of People vs. Medina (G. R. No. 32113, promulgated on
the same date and by the same division, not reported), it was held that
the loss of four teeth did not constitute a disfigurement within the
meaning of the law, because it was not permanent; that the
disfigurement was not permanent, because the four natural teeth lost by
the offended party had been substituted by artificial teeth. The
defendant was sentenced to suffer thirty days of arresto menor and to indemnify the offended party in the sum of P60, the cost of the false teeth.

We have not found any decision of this court in banc that is in point.

The Rodas and Medina cases, supra, 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. In our opinion 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.

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 disfigured by the loss of four front teeth. We
are therefore of the opinion that the defendant is guilty of a
violation of subsection 3 of article 263 of the Revised Penal Code.

A further reason for considering the offense committed by the appellant as lesiones graves
is that a front tooth is a member of the body, other than a principal
member, within the meaning of the words, “or shall have lost any other
member”, as used in subsection 3 of article 263 of the Revised Penal
Code. It was held in Keith vs. State (282 S. W., 321) by the
Texas Court of Criminal Appeals that front teeth are members of the
body within the operation of a statute providing punishment for
depriving a person of a member of his body. This decision is
extensively annotated in 16 A. L. R., 949, 955.

With respect to the aggravating circumstance of nocturnity, it
appears that the lower court appreciated this circumstance because “el
acusacto esperd al ofendido en el lugar de autos a las 11 de la noche.”
The evidence shows that the accused had stopped his truck in front of
his father’s house. Apparently the accused as well as the offended
party had just returned from Bangrued. It does not appear that he
intentionally sought the cover of darkness or that he took advantage
thereof. It was not a dark night, and the accused did not conceal
himself.

The evidence shows that the offended party spent P20 for medicine
and paid his doctor P20. The accused should be required to indemnify
the offended party in the sum of

For the foregoing reasons, the accused is sentenced to suffer one year, eight months, and twenty-one days of prision correccional
and to indemnify the offended party in the sum of P40, with the
corresponding subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency, and in
accordance with the Indeterminate Sentence Act the minimum sentence of
the accused is fixed at five months of arresto mayor. As thus modified, the decision appealed from is affirmed, with the costs against the appellant.

Avancenia, C. J., Street, Villa-Real, Imperial, Butte, Goddard, and Diaz, JJ., concur.

HULL, J.:

I concur in the result.

 

---

MALCOLM, J.,

The questions so learnedly discussed in the majority decision in banc
are hardly deserving of such distinction, and were it not that the
decision has the effect of revoking prior decisions’ and of aligning
the court with obsolete notions of penology, I would not take the
trouble to dissent. According to the view I take of the case, the
breaking of four teeth neither constitutes a deformity nor the loss of
any part of one’s body within the meaning of paragraph 3, article 263
of the Revised Penal Code, considering the ease with which an injury of
this nature could be remedied by any reputable dentist.

According to the medical certificate, the offended party had four
teeth broken as follows: two superior central teeth, one inferior right
central tooth, and one inferior right lateral tooth; and according to
the decision of the trial judge, the loss of these four teeth was not
due to the accused, but resulted from the offended party having them
extracted by a dentist.

The majority decision lays great stress on a number of decisions of
the Supreme Court of Spain. If it be desired to take into account these
decisions, it should be recalled that according to the Supreme Court of
Spain, by deformity is meant visible ugliness, permanent and visible
physical abnormality. (5 Viada, Codigo Penal Comentado, 144.)
If this doctrine is correct, the breaking of one or more teeth need not
produce permanent and visible deformity, for any dentist can fill or
replace such teeth. Moreover, while decisions coming from the Supreme
Court of Spain are entitled to persuasive respect just as decisions
coming from any other country are entitled to similar respect, they are
no longer absolutely binding on the Supreme Court of the Philippines,
and this court is at liberty to take a progressive stand in
interpreting our Revised Penal Code.

The majority decision has also seen fit to resurrect a decision of
a state supreme court in an endeavor to show that a tooth is “any other
member of the body/’ That decision, however, it should be observed, is
simply the interpretation of a local mayhem statute.

In the case of People vs. Medina (G. R. No. 32113,
promulgated February 7, 1930, not reported), mention was made of the
decision of the Supreme Court of Spain to which I have previously
referred, and it was said:

“La lesion causada a Lin Kip Si, fue calificada de
grave por habersele a dicho ofendido caido cuatro dientes a
consecuencia del golpe que recibiera en la boca. Es verdad que en la
jurisprudencia, especialmente la espanola, como espanol es tambi£n de
origin el Codigo Penal aqui vigente, we ha declarado repetidamente que
la pordida de dientes constituye deformidad; pero debe tenerse en
cuenta que la deformidad a que se refiere la ley es, segiin sentencia
del Tribunal Supremo de Espafia de 11 de diciembre de 1885, la
deformidad permanente y definitiva. Y segiin sentencia del mismo
Tribunal, de 15 de octubre de 1903, donde la perdida de un incisivo no
se considerd deformidad, “la deformidad fisica que produce de dientes
incisivos, por la irregularidad en las formas que de esta falta
resulta, hay que apreciarla con relacion a la edad y otras
circunstancias que pueden ocurrir en cada caso concreto.’ (Vide Codigo Penal Comentariado por Viada, tomo 5, pagina 148, 5.a edicion,.)

“Habiendose repuesto con dientes artificiales los perdidos por el
aludido ofendido, no puede decirse que la deformidad producida por la
perdida de estos dientes sea permanente y definitiva. Observese que lo
que agrava la pena es la deformidad, la cual, si llega a desaparecer,
sea cual fuere la causa de tal desaparicion, entendemos que no debe
estimarse permanente. Ahora bien, en el caso que nos ocupa la
desaparicion de tal deformidad se debe a tratamiento facultativo que
costo al ofendido P60 de la cual el acusado debe responder. Tenidas en
cuenta las circunstancias tddas del caso, entendemos que no debe
considerarse que el hecho delictivo de que aqui se trata produjera la
deformidad permanente a que se refiere la ley y la jurisprudencia, como
dato de agravacion de la delincuencia.”

In the case of People vs. Rodas (G. R. No. 31807, promulgated February 7,1930, not reported), a similar question was discussed in the following language:

“The provision of law invoked by the trial court
and by the Attorney-General to fit the case is paragraph 3 of article
416 of the Penal Code. Said paragraph provides a penalty of prision correccional
in its minimum and medium degrees, if in consequence of the physical
injuries the person injured shall have become deformed, or shall have
lost some member other than a principal member, or shall have lost the
use of such member. It is said that the loss of two teeth brings the
case within this penal provision. In support thereof, certain decisions
of the Supreme Court of Spain are cited. At the same time, it should be
noted that these decisions are from the Supreme Court of Spain, and
that some of them are of ancient date. Whatever the state of dental
surgery in Spain may fee, and as to that we are not informed, in the
United States and in the Philippine Islands the loss of one or more
teeth need not be taken as providing a permanent physical abnormality.
The provisions of our Penal Code, entirely overly severe, old in
precept, and out of all harmony with the modern principles of penology,
have not had the effect of fastening upon the Philippines each and
every idea of ancient lineage which the ingenuity of man has evolved
from those provisions. The criminal law, like every other branch of the
law, is a progressive science. The members of the judiciary can take
into account the advances in other professions such as dentistry to
humanize the Penal Code and to minimize its rigor.”

In the case of People vs. Oh Suilay (G. R. No. 40699, p. 1024, post),
the information alleged that various blows had caused the loss of two
teeth producing a deformity. The evidence substantiated this allegation
and on appeal to this court it was specifically found as a fact that
the injured party received several blows “one of which knocked out two
of his teeth.” The Solicitor-General, taking cognizance of the evidence
to this effect, argued that the case fell under article 263 of the
Revised Penal Code, but this court declining to follow this suggestion
merely found the accused guilty of the crime of less serious physical
injuries penalized by article 265 of the Revised Penal Code. The
decision here referred to, it should be mentioned, was written by
Justice Street of the first division And concurred in by Justices Abad
Santos and Hull, and was promulgated on July 20 of this year.

Lastly, as a foreign court has well said: “The science of dentistry
like many others has advanced in later times, specially in the
direction of preserving and repairing teeth and in substituting
artificial teeth and we are entitled to take cognizance of what is
common knowledge in this regard.” (Rex vs. Crukshanks, 7 Alta., L., 92, 95.)

With all due respect, I am constrained to dissent.

ABAD SANTOS, J.;

I concur in the dissenting opinion of Justice Malcolm.