People v. Gimeno
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: The defendant, Pantaleon Gimeno, armed with a gun, allegedly entered the house of the complaining witness at midnight, beat him with the butt of the gun, and took money and other property from his family before departing. Procedural History: The defendant was found guilty in the court below. No objections were made to the sufficiency of the complaint in the court below. The Petition: In the appellate court, the defendant claimed the complaint was deficient in several respects, including the omission of the word "feloniously" and the failure to specify which member of the family each article of property belonged to. It was also claimed that the defendant's lawyer was not present when the sentence was pronounced.
Issue(s)
Whether the complaint is deficient for failing to state that the defendant acted "feloniously." Whether the complaint is deficient for failing to specify which member of the family each article of property belonged to. Whether the judgment should be reversed because the defendant's lawyer was not present when the sentence was pronounced.
Ruling
The judgment of the court below is affirmed with costs against the appellant.
Ratio Decidendi
On the alleged deficiency for failing to state "feloniously": The Court held that when a complaint clearly alleges the commission of a crime, including the manner of its execution (armed with a gun, entering a house at midnight, beating the victim) and the property taken, it is not necessary to add the statement that the defendant acted "feloniously." The factual allegations themselves sufficiently indicate the criminal intent and nature of the act. On the alleged deficiency regarding the ownership of property: The Court found that even if the complaint failed to specify the exact owner of each article of property taken from the complaining witness's family, this did not prejudice any substantial right of the defendant on the merits. The core of the offense, the taking of property, was sufficiently alleged. The Court emphasized that such a defect, if it were one, would not be a ground for reversal under General Orders No. 58, section 10. On the alleged absence of the defendant's lawyer during the pronouncement of sentence: The Court stated that the same principle applied to this claim as to the alleged defects in the complaint. It indicated that this procedural claim, like the others, did not warrant a reversal of the judgment.
Main Doctrine
A complaint alleging the commission of a crime, including the manner of its execution and the property taken, is not rendered fatally defective by the omission of the word "feloniously" or by the failure to specify the exact owner of each article of property taken, especially when no substantial right of the defendant on the merits was prejudiced by such omissions.