G.R. No. 9426 - People vs. Marasigan

On January 23, 1913, at approximately 4:00 p.m., Francisco Mendoza was inspecting his sugar crop in the barrio of Irucan (now called Calayan) in the municipality of Taal, Batangas Province.
During his inspection, Mendoza was approached by the accused, Filomeno Marasigan, and his wife.

The accused initiated the encounter by questioning the boundary line between the lands, stating, "Why is this line curved? Let us make it straight."
Mendoza responded by explaining that adjusting the boundary would transfer certain logs and trees to the accused's parcel.
The accused denied the validity of Mendoza's assertion, contending that the original arrangement had been misrepresented.

The accused drew his knife and struck at Mendoza, initiating a physical altercation.
In an effort to ward off the attack, Mendoza sustained a cut on his left hand.
Despite Mendoza’s attempt to defend himself, the accused continued the violent engagement.

Mendoza managed to seize the accused by the neck and throw him to the ground.
While the two lay on the ground, a struggle ensued over control of the knife.
During the melee, the accused’s wife intervened by confiscating the dagger from her husband.
Even after the intervention, the accused struck Mendoza, contributing further to the altercation.

As a result of the confrontation, Mendoza sustained three wounds: two on the chest and one on the left hand.
The most serious injury was the cut on the left hand, which severed the extensor tendon of one of his fingers, rendering it permanently useless.
Medical treatment was rendered effectively over seven days with a cost of about P45, though the loss of function in the affected finger was irreversible.

The accused provided a version of the events markedly different from that presented by Mendoza and corroborated by evidence.
The trial court, after evaluating all evidence, found Mendoza’s account to be accurate and relied on these findings in its decision.

Whether the trial court properly determined the facts of the incident, especially regarding the actual events of the physical altercation and the injuries sustained by Mendoza.
Whether the conflicting accounts presented by the accused versus Mendoza were sufficiently resolved in favor of the evidence supporting Mendoza’s version.

The accused argued for a new trial on the premise that additional evidence, particularly the testimony of physician Gregorio Limjoco, would demonstrate that the injured finger (allegedly the middle finger) was not necessarily rendered useless, being potentially restorable via surgical operation.
The issue also encompassed whether it mattered legally if the finger injured was the middle finger or the third finger, and if such distinctions could justify a new trial.

Whether the natural and ordinary consequences of the accused’s criminal act should be mitigated by potential medical intervention, particularly the possibility of restoring the finger’s functionality.