Title
People vs. Balubar
Case
G.R. No. 40940
Decision Date
Oct 9, 1934
Defendant attacked victim, causing permanent disfigurement via tooth loss; nocturnity rejected; SC ruled loss of teeth as permanent disfigurement under penal code.
people v balubar
revised penal code
physical injuries

Case Summary (G.R. No. 40940)

Factual Background

Evidence showed that the appellant struck the offended party in the mouth with an iron instrument used for cranking the engine of a motor truck. The blow broke four front teeth and inflicted a wound on the upper lip, which required medical attention. The assault occurred late at night. The offended party, accompanied by three girls, was driving an ox cart, preceded by the cart of Ambrosio Belandres. It was the night of Good Friday, and the group was returning home after seeing the procession in Bangued.

The appellant had stopped his motor truck in front of his father’s house. When the two carts approached, he got out. After asking Ambrosio Belandres for Isidro Pizarro, the offended party, he went to the cart driven by Isidro Pizarro and struck him with the piece of iron. The motive for the assault appeared to be the appellant’s resentment because the offended party had testified as a witness for Paulino Belandres in a case between the Belandres and the appellant.

The prosecution relied on the testimony of the offended party and of Dolores Belandres, one of the offended party’s companions. Dr. Jose Purugganan testified on the injuries sustained. The offended party required extraction of the broken teeth because they ached and hurt his gums. The trial judge found that at the time of trial the offended party had a very noticeable disfigurement in his mouth.

Appellant’s Version and the Defense Theory

The appellant took the stand in his own behalf. He testified that the offended party was drunk and insulted him. According to the appellant, after hearing the insulting words he got out of his truck, caught hold of the rope on the ox cart, and asked the offended party for an explanation. He claimed he gave the rope a sudden jerk, causing the offended party to fall over in the cart. He then stated that the offended party and his companions drove on, while the appellant returned to his truck.

He further claimed that about a month later the offended party told him that he should pay for four gold teeth to replace the broken ones, but that he declined because he was not at fault. He added that the conversation took place more than ten days before the extraction of the teeth. The offended party denied that such a conversation occurred. The Court treated the defense as resting on the appellant’s uncorroborated testimony, and it observed that the complaint was filed on April 19, 1933, which was long before the time the appellant claimed the conversation occurred.

Trial Court Ruling

After hearing the evidence, the trial judge found that the appellant committed the offense charged, with the aggravating circumstance of nocturnity. The court sentenced the appellant under subsection 3 of article 263 of the Revised Penal Code to suffer four years and two months of prision correccional, imposed the accessory penalties provided by law, and ordered payment of costs.

Issues on Review

The principal question was whether the physical injuries inflicted constituted a violation of subsection 3 of article 263. The case also involved review of whether nocturnity was correctly appreciated as an aggravating circumstance. The Court additionally addressed the legal meaning of the statutory terms “deforme” and “cualquier otro miembro” as those phrases appeared in the Spanish text and as they were rendered in the official English translation.

Interpretation of Article 263, Subsection 3

The Court noted that the Spanish text punished prision correccional in its minimum and medium periods if, as a result of the physical injuries, the injured person became “deforme” or lost “cualquier otro miembro”, among other circumstances. The official English translation used the phrases “disfigured” and “any other part of his body.” The Court held that the phrase “cualquier otro miembro” was scarcely justified by the translation “any other part of his body.” It reasoned that “cualquier otro miembro” more accurately meant “any other member,” meaning a member other than the principal members referenced in subsection 2, namely an eye, a hand, a foot, an arm, or a leg. It also stated that “deforme” was better translated as “disfigured.”

The Court then treated the case as involving the breaking off of four incisors. It adopted the view that the result, as found by the trial judge, was a conspicuous disfigurement.

In support, the Court cited multiple decisions of the Supreme Court of Spain. It referenced holdings that the loss of four teeth constitutes a true and irreparable disfigurement by the action of nature; that the loss of two incisors constitutes disfigurement; that loss of teeth with visible traces and notoria imperfeccion of personal regularity falls within the statutory notion of deformity; and that permanent visible imperfection qualifies as deformity. It also cited an additional line of Spanish rulings on the meaning of deformity as a matter of fact that could be assessed by the tribunal from the evidence, and that once visibly estimated by the trial court, it should not be disturbed absent clear error.

The Court acknowledged an opposing Spanish ruling that the loss of an incisor by an elderly woman did not constitute the disfigurement contemplated by the law, because the physical defect had to be appraised in relation to age and other circumstances. It also discussed that the penalty-enhancing concept of deformity depends on whether it is of the kind and permanence contemplated by the statute.

Treatment of Prior Philippine Decisions (Rodas and Medina)

The Court observed that it had not found any decision of the Court in banc directly in point. It noted that People vs. Rodas and People vs. Medina had refused to follow Spanish decisions on the premise that they were obsolete because of progress in dental science. Those cases held, in effect, that the loss of one or more teeth need not be taken as a permanent physical abnormality and that loss of four teeth did not constitute disfigurement when natural teeth could be substituted with artificial teeth, making the disfigurement not permanent.

The Court held that this interpretation was not correct. It stated that the injury contemplated by the Code was one that cannot be repaired by the action of nature. It further held that if the loss of teeth is visible and impairs appearance, it constitutes disfigurement. It reasoned that artificial teeth may lessen the disfigurement, but they do not repair the injury contemplated by law. It treated as exceptions situations involving a child or an old person.

The Court also stated a general principle of responsibility: one who unlawfully wounds another is responsible for the consequences of his act. If the offended party is impaired in appearance such that disfigurement cannot be removed by nature, the person causing the injuries is responsible, and he is not relieved because the offended party might, if he had the means, lessen the disfigurement through artificial means.

Applying these considerations to the record, the Court found that the offended party was twenty-five years old and was conspicuously disfigured by the loss of four front teeth. It therefore held that the appellant was guilty of violation of subsection 3 of article 263 of the Revised Penal Code.

Additional Legal Ground: Teeth as “Members of the Body”

The Court added that another reason supported classification as lesiones graves. It reasoned that a front tooth is a member of the body other than a principal member within the meaning of “or shall have lost any other member” in subsection 3 of article 263. It cited Keith vs. State (282 S. W., 321) from Texas as holding that front teeth are members of the body under a statute punishing deprivation of a member of the body. The Court treated that authority as consistent with the statutory text and the purpose of subsection 3.

Aggravating Circumstance of Nocturnity

On nocturnity, the Court examined the basis used by the trial judge, which was that the accused was said to have espied the offended party at the scene of the incident at 11:00 p.m. The evidence showed that the appellant had stopped his truck in front of his father’s house and that apparently both the appellant and the offended party had just returned from Bangued. The Court held that it did not appear that the appellant intentionally sought the cover of darkness or took advantage of it. It found that the night was not dark, and the appellant did not conceal himself. It therefore concluded that nocturnity should not have been appreciated as an aggravating circumstance.

Civil Liability and Indemnity

The decision also discussed indemnification. It stated that the evidence showed the offended party spent P20 for medicine and paid his doctor P20. The Court imposed indemnity in the sum of P40, with corresponding subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency, and adjusted the penalties accordingly.

Disposition of the Appeal

The Court sentenced the appellant to suffer one year, eight months, and twenty-one days of prision correccional, in light of the modification that removed nocturnity. It ordered the

...continue reading

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur helps you analyze cases smarter to comprehend faster, building context before diving into full texts. AI-powered analysis, always verify critical details.

About Privacy Terms