[ G.R. No. 12916. December 15, 1917 ] 37 Phil. 319
[ G.R. No. 12916. December 15, 1917 ]
THE UNITED STATES, PLAINTIFF AND APPELLEE, VS. LAURO FONTANILLA, DEFENDANT AND APPELLANT. D E C I S I O N
MALCOLM, J.:
The defendant and appellant was charged in the Court of First Instance of Ilocos Sur with the crime of lesiones menos graves (less grave physical injuries) inflicted on the persons of Victoriano Gimenez and Antonio Montanes. He was found guilty and sentenced to six months of arresto mayor with the accessory penalties provided by law, and to pay the costs. On appeal, counsel de officio assigns seven errors of the trial court, all of which can be divided into questions concerning the sufficiency of the evidence and the penalty to be imposed. Counsel supports his assignments of error with an elaborate and carefully prepared brief. The Attorney-General answers with an equally well written brief, concluding with the recommendation that the judgment be affirmed.
We have read the respective briefs and the decision of the trial court and have checked the evidence with the record. After a full consideration, but without taking the time to set forth the facts in detail, we cannot say that we are warranted in disturbing the findings of the trial court. More specifically, as the president of the municipal board of health testified, the wound of Victoriano Gimenez incapacitated him for labor for nine or ten days, and the wound of Antonio Montanes kept him from performing his regular work between five and seven days. Consequently, the facts as to Gimenez come under article 418, and as to Montanes under article 587, of the Penal Code.
This court recently held in a decision handed down by Justice Carson,^with Justice Street and the writer dissenting, that an accused can he convicted of more than one offense under one information. (U. S. vs. Balaba [1917], ante, p. 260. Following this rule, the accused must be found guilty of a violation of the two articles of the Penal Code above mentioned. As the record discloses that the accused is several times a recidivist, and as no mitigating circumstances are found, the court was justified in imposing the penalty in the maximum degree. The defendant and appellant is further sentenced to twenty-one days of arresto menor.
No evidence to prove damages for medical treatment, loss to the offended parties because of inability to perform their usual vocation, etc., was introduced at the trial. The lower court made no finding as to indemnification. Without such proof and finding, this court can of course not determine the amount of the indemnity.
With the addition above indicated, judgment is affirmed with the costs of this instance against the appellant. So ordered.
Arellano, C. J., Johnson, Carson, Araullo, Street, and Avancena, JJ., concur.