People v. Herrera
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: The accused, Ciriaco Herrera, wounded Silvestre Bautista in the right sacrolumbal region with a penknife after a prior physical altercation where they wrestled without weapons. The wounding occurred as Bautista was getting into his vehicle after the fight had been broken up for the third time and Bautista had recovered his hat. Procedural History: The Court of First Instance of Manila found the accused guilty of 'lesiones menos graves,' sentencing him to three months of 'arresto mayor,' to indemnify the injured party for medical expenses, and to pay costs. The Petition: The accused appealed, arguing that since the injured party was not incapacitated for work for more than eight days, the offense should be classified as a misdemeanor, and that circumstance 7 of Article 9 of the Penal Code (acting under powerful excitement causing loss of reason and self-control) should have been considered.
Issue(s)
Whether the injury sustained by Silvestre Bautista, requiring medical attendance for more than eight days but not incapacitating him for work for more than eight days, constitutes 'lesiones menos graves' under Article 418 of the Penal Code. Whether the accused acted under the mitigating circumstance of powerful excitement as contemplated by Article 9, circumstance 7, of the Penal Code.
Ruling
The judgment appealed from is affirmed. The accused is guilty of 'lesiones menos graves.'
Ratio Decidendi
On the classification of the offense: The Court held that the fact that the injured party required medical attendance for more than eight days is sufficient to classify the deed as 'lesiones menos graves' according to Article 418 of the Penal Code, irrespective of whether he was incapacitated for work for more than eight days. The law specifies the duration of medical attendance as a criterion for classification. On the applicability of mitigating circumstance 7 of Article 9: The Court ruled that mitigating circumstance No. 7 of Article 9 of the Penal Code cannot be considered in this case. It is an established rule of jurisprudence that for this circumstance to apply, the excitement must be so powerful as to produce an entire loss of reason and self-control. The general excitement inherent in persons quarreling and coming to blows is not sufficient; it is necessary that the guilty party act under the impulse of special motives that can be classified according to the existing circumstances. The Court cited decisions of the Supreme Court of Spain to support this interpretation, emphasizing the need for exceptional motives beyond the usual emotions of a fight.
Main Doctrine
The requirement of medical attendance for more than eight days is sufficient to classify a deed as 'lesiones menos graves' under Article 418 of the Penal Code, and the mitigating circumstance of acting under powerful excitement requires more than the general excitement inherent in a quarrel.