People v. Balubar
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: The accused, Alipio Balubar, was charged with assaulting Isidro Pizarro with an iron instrument, causing a lacerated wound on the upper lip, breaking two teeth, and fracturing two others, resulting in permanent deformity. The incident occurred at night. The motive appeared to be resentment from a prior legal dispute where Pizarro was a witness against Balubar. Procedural History: The Court of First Instance of Abra found the defendant guilty of the offense charged, with the aggravating circumstance of nocturnity, and sentenced him to four years and two months of prision correccional and accessory penalties. The defendant appealed. The Petition: The attorneys for the appellant did not make specific assignments of error but presented a 'relacion de hechos' outlining their version of the incident, including the offended party being drunk and insulting the accused, and the accused's contention that the injuries resulted from the offended party falling in his cart.
Issue(s)
Whether the physical injuries inflicted, specifically the loss of four front teeth, constitute 'deformity' under Article 263, subsection 3 of the Revised Penal Code. Whether a front tooth can be considered a 'member of the body' within the meaning of Article 263, subsection 3 of the Revised Penal Code. Whether the aggravating circumstance of nocturnity was present.
Ruling
The Court affirmed the conviction but modified the penalty. The accused was sentenced to one year, eight months, and twenty-one days of prision correccional, to indemnify the offended party in the sum of P40, with subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency, and the minimum sentence was fixed at five months of arresto mayor in accordance with the Indeterminate Sentence Act. The aggravating circumstance of nocturnity was not appreciated.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of 'deformity' under Article 263, subsection 3 of the Revised Penal Code: The Court held that the loss of four front teeth, resulting in a conspicuous disfigurement, constitutes 'deformity' as contemplated by law. The Court cited numerous decisions of the Supreme Court of Spain which held that the loss of teeth constitutes deformity. It clarified that the injury contemplated by the Code is one that cannot be repaired by the action of nature. The fact that artificial teeth may be substituted does not repair the injury itself, although it may lessen the disfigurement. The Court noted that the offended party was twenty-five years old at the time of the incident, making the disfigurement more significant. The Court rejected the reasoning in People vs. Rodas and People vs. Medina which suggested that the loss of teeth does not constitute permanent abnormality due to advancements in dental science and the possibility of artificial replacement, stating that this was not a correct interpretation of the law. On whether a front tooth is a 'member of the body': The Court further reasoned that a front tooth is a member of the body, other than a principal member, within the meaning of Article 263, subsection 3 of the Revised Penal Code. It cited the case of Keith vs. State from the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals, which held 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 interpretation supports the classification of the offense as lesiones graves. On the aggravating circumstance of nocturnity: The Court found that the aggravating circumstance of nocturnity was not present. While the incident occurred at night, the evidence showed that the accused had stopped his truck in front of his father's house and apparently both parties had just returned from Bangued. It did not appear that the accused intentionally sought the cover of darkness or took advantage thereof. The night was not dark, and the accused did not conceal himself, thus negating the element of nocturnity.
Main Doctrine
The loss of four front teeth, resulting in a conspicuous disfigurement, constitutes 'deformity' under Article 263, subsection 3 of the Revised Penal Code, even if artificial teeth can be substituted, as such substitution does not repair the injury itself but merely lessens the disfigurement. A front tooth is considered a 'member of the body' other than a principal member for the purpose of this provision.