3/4/2014 G.R. No. L-7108 - UNITED STATES vs. JOSE MALLARI, ET AL.

http://www.chanrobles.com/scdecisions/jurisprudence1913/feb1913/gr_l-7108_1913.php 1/4

Tweet 0

ChanRoblesVirtual Law Library |chanrobles.com

Search

CLICK HERE FOR THE LATEST SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE

Home > ChanRobles Virtual Law Library > Philippine Supreme Court

Jurisprudence >

EN BANC

G.R. No. L-7108 February 20, 1913

THE UNITED STATES, Plaintiff-Appellee, vs.JOSE MALLARI and VICENTE CUESON,

Defendants-Appellants.

T.L. McGirr, for appellants.Office of the Solicitor-General Harvey, forappellee.

JOHNSON, J. :c h a n r o b l e s v i r t u a l l a w l i b r a r y

These defendants were charged with the crimeof lesiones menos graves and found guilty bythe judge of the Court of First Instance of theProvince of Cagayan. Jose Mallari was

0Like

3/4/2014 G.R. No. L-7108 - UNITED STATES vs. JOSE MALLARI, ET AL.

http://www.chanrobles.com/scdecisions/jurisprudence1913/feb1913/gr_l-7108_1913.php 2/4

sentenced to be imprisoned for a period ofthree months of arresto mayor and VicenteCueson was sentenced to be imprisoned for aperiod of one month of arresto mayor, and eachto pay one-half the costs. From that sentenceboth of the defendants appealed. c h a n r o b l e s v i r t u a l a w l i b r a r y c h a n r o b l e s v i r t u a l l a w l i b r a r y

During the pendency of the appeal thedefendant Vicente Cueson withdrew his appeal(see Record), and the sentence of the lowercourt as to him became final. c h a n r o b l e s v i r t u a l a w l i b r a r y c h a n r o b l e s v i r t u a l l a w l i b r a r y

An examination of the evidence shows clearlythat the defendant Jose Mallari, on the eveningof the 29th of August, 1910, in the municipalityof Aparri, Province of Cagayan, did voluntarily,illegally, and criminally with a stick or club beatand wound one Ignacio Alvarado, causingseveral slight wounds upon his body. Theevidence tends to show that Ignacio Alvaradowas incapacitated from pursuing his regularavocations for a few days. Alvarado testifiedthat he was incapacitated for a period of tendays. c h a n r o b l e s v i r t u a l a w l i b r a r y c h a n r o b l e s v i r t u a l l a w l i b r a r y

Mr. C.F. Brantigan, a sanitary inspector of themunicipality of Aparri, testified that Alvaradowas probably incapacitated from pursuing hisordinary avocations for a period of from sevento nine days. There is no positive proof thatAlvarado was incapacitated from pursuing hisordinary avocations for a longer period thanseven to nine days. There is nothing in therecord which shows that his injuries were at allserious. We are inclined to give the defendantthe benefit of the doubt and find from theevidence that Alvarado was not incapacitatedfrom pursuing his ordinary avocations for aperiod longer than seven days, and thereforethat the defendant should be punished naccordance with the provisions of article 587 ofthe Penal Code. (U.S. vs. Lazada, 9 Phil. Rep.,509.) c h a n r o b l e s v i r t u a l l a w l i b r a r y

The Attorney-General recommends that thedefendants should be required to indemnify theoffended party in the sum of P140, that beingthe amount which Alvarado claims he expendedin being cured from the effects of the woundsinflicted upon him. Upon an examination of theevidence relating to this particular question, wefind that Alvarado did testify that he expendedthe sum of P140, but the evidence does notshow that this amount was expended ineffecting a cure of his injuries. We are,therefore, disinclined to make any allowancewhatever for the expenditure alleged to havebeen made by Alvarado. c h a n r o b l e s v i r t u a l a w l i b r a r y c h a n r o b l e s v i r t u a l l a w l i b r a r y

The plaintiff claims that the sentence of thelower court was void because the Court of FirstInstance did not have jurisdiction over thesubject matter; that it was a cause fallingwithin the original jurisdiction of a justice ofthe peace. In order to determine thejurisdiction of the court in criminal causes, the

FranceHighlight

FranceHighlight

FranceHighlight

FranceHighlight

FranceHighlight

FranceHighlight

FranceHighlight

FranceHighlight

FranceHighlight

3/4/2014 G.R. No. L-7108 - UNITED STATES vs. JOSE MALLARI, ET AL.

http://www.chanrobles.com/scdecisions/jurisprudence1913/feb1913/gr_l-7108_1913.php 3/4

complaint must be examined for the purpose ofascertaining whether or not the facts set outtherein and the punishment provided for by lawfor such acts fall within the jurisdiction of thecourt in which the complaint is presented. If thefacts set out in the complaint are sufficient toshow that the court in which the complaint ispresented has jurisdiction, then it is sufficientto hold that the court has jurisdiction. The merefact that after the trial and after the court hasheard the evidence, it is found that a lessercrime has been committed than that describedin the complaint, the court cannot then dismissthe case because the action should have beenbrought in the court of a justice of the peace orin a lower court. To illustrate: A complaint ispresented charging the defendant with thecrime of attempted murder. After the trial thecourt finds that the crime which had actuallybeen committed was nothing more or less thanassault and battery. In such a case the courttaking jurisdiction over the crime described inthe complaint retains jurisdiction for thepurpose of imposing the penalty provided for bylaw for the crime proved to have beencommitted. In other words, the court'sjurisdiction in the first instance is determinedby the facts alleged in the complaint. c h a n r o b l e s v i r t u a l a w l i b r a r y c h a n r o b l e s v i r t u a l l a w l i b r a r y

After a careful consideration of the facts, weare of the opinion of the judgment of the lowercourt should be reversed, and that thedefendant should be sentenced to beimprisoned for a period of thirty days of arrestomenor, and to pay one-half the costs. Soordered. c h a n r o b l e s v i r t u a l a w l i b r a r y c h a n r o b l e s v i r t u a l l a w l i b r a r y

Arellano, C.J., Torres, Mapa, Moreland, andTrent, JJ., concur.

CLICK HERE FOR THE LATEST SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE

1901 1902 1903 1904 1905 1906 1907 1908 1909 1910 1911 1912 1913 1914 1915 1916 1917 1918 1919 1920

1921 1922 1923 1924 1925 1926 1927 1928 1929 1930 1931 1932 1933 1934 1935 1936 1937 1938 1939 1940

1941 1942 1943 1944 1945 1946 1947 1948 1949 1950 1951 1952 1953 1954 1955 1956 1957 1958 1959 1960

1961 1962 1963 1964 1965 1966 1967 1968 1969 1970 1971 1972 1973 1974 1975 1976 1977 1978 1979 1980

1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000

2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013

FEATURED DECISIONScralaw

Main Indices of the Library ---> Go!

3/4/2014 G.R. No. L-7108 - UNITED STATES vs. JOSE MALLARI, ET AL.

http://www.chanrobles.com/scdecisions/jurisprudence1913/feb1913/gr_l-7108_1913.php 4/4

Search for www.chanrobles.com

Search

QUICK SEARCH

1901 1902 1903 1904 1905 1906 1907 1908 1909 1910 1911 1912 1913 1914 1915 1916 1917 1918 1919 1920

1921 1922 1923 1924 1925 1926 1927 1928 1929 1930 1931 1932 1933 1934 1935 1936 1937 1938 1939 1940

1941 1942 1943 1944 1945 1946 1947 1948 1949 1950 1951 1952 1953 1954 1955 1956 1957 1958 1959 1960

1961 1962 1963 1964 1965 1966 1967 1968 1969 1970 1971 1972 1973 1974 1975 1976 1977 1978 1979 1980

1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000

2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012

Copyright 1998 - 2014 ChanRoblesPublishing Company| Disclaimer | E-mailRestrictions ChanRoblesVirtual Law Library | chanrobles.com RED