Title
People vs. Escobar
Case
G.R. No. 108
Decision Date
Apr 8, 1902
Escobar assaulted Pacleb after a confrontation, causing injuries. Convicted under incorrect Penal Code provision, Supreme Court reclassified offense, adjusted sentence to two years, upheld gender-based aggravating circumstance, and respected waiver of indemnification.

Case Digest (A.C. No. 12552)
Expanded Legal Reasoning Model

Facts:

  • Case Background
    • The case originated from the Court of First Instance of Ilocos Sur en banc, and was presented in consults.
    • The defendant, Juan Escobar, was previously convicted in the lower court for committing the offense of lesiones graves under Article 416 of the Penal Code.
    • The specific charge in the lower court corresponded to No. 3 of Article 416, though the evidence supports a different classification.
  • Incident Details
    • The complainant, Bernabela Pacleb, had explicitly forbidden Escobar, who was known to be courting her daughter, from approaching her residence.
    • On the day of the incident, Escobar appeared at the complainant’s house, although it remained unclear whether his intention was to court the daughter or to intimidate/assault Bernabela Pacleb.
    • A dispute ensued between the parties on the premises, leading to the complainant fleeing the house.
  • Sequence of Events
    • Once outside, Bernabela Pacleb was initially pursued by Escobar and encountered him in the street.
    • Escobar struck the complainant several times with a stick, causing physical injuries.
    • In an attempt to escape, the complainant sought refuge in a neighbor's house; Escobar followed and vocally threatened to “kill the old woman” while lingering at the door.
  • Injuries and Medical Findings
    • The complainant sustained a wound above her left eye.
    • In addition, a fracture was noted in one of the bones of her left forearm, which healed without significant deformity apart from reduced supination movement.
    • She made a physical recovery from her wounds in forty days and was incapacitated for any form of labor for twenty-eight days.
  • Aggravating Circumstances
    • The lower court had found the aggravating circumstance described in Article 10, No. 9 of the Penal Code based on the gender difference between defendant and complainant, and other contextual facts.
    • There was also a finding of a second aggravating circumstance under Article 10, No. 20 by the lower court, though the evidence did not clearly support its presence.

Issues:

  • Proper Classification of the Offense
    • Should the defendant be convicted under Article 416, No. 3, or should the offense be properly classified under Article 416, No. 4 in light of the circumstances?
    • Determination of the appropriate interpretation of “lesiones graves” as applied in this case.
  • Evaluation of Aggravating Circumstances
    • Whether the aggravating circumstance under Article 10, No. 9 (considering the difference in sex and other dynamics) is valid and clearly established.
    • Whether the additional aggravating circumstance under Article 10, No. 20 is adequately supported by the evidence or if it was erroneously applied.
  • Assessment of Mitigating Factors
    • Whether any extenuating circumstances exist that might reduce the defendant’s liability or justify a less severe penalty.
    • Consideration of the actual injuries and medical recovery in determining the gravity of the offense.
  • Sentence Appropriateness
    • Whether the original sentence of three years of prision correccional was commensurate with the offense, or if a revised penalty is warranted based on the correct classification and aggravating factors.

Ruling:

  • (Subscriber-Only)

Ratio:

  • (Subscriber-Only)

Doctrine:

  • (Subscriber-Only)

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur helps you analyze cases smarter to comprehend faster—building context before diving into full texts.