ChanRobles™ Virtual Law Library™
com™
Custom Search
Search
ChanRobles On-Line Bar Review
DebtKollect Company, Inc.
ChanRobles Intellectual Property
Division
| chanrobles.
Search
Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1908 > July 1908 Decisions > G.R. No. 280 July 25, 1908 -
UNITED STATES v. ELEUTERIO MARASIGAN
011 Phil 27:
EN BANC
[G.R. No. 280. July 25, 1908. ]
THE UNITED STATES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. ELEUTERIO MARASIGAN, Defendant-Appellant.
M. Adriatico for Appellant.
Solicitor-General Araneta for Appellee.
SYLLABUS
1. DISCHARGE OF FIREARMS; "LESIONES;" PENALTY. — If the discharge of a firearm by a person caused
to the assaulted party lesion mas o menos grave, under the penal laws the crime committed was a
double offense, one, by discharging a firearm against a certain person, and the other, by causing lesiones
graves or menos graves, defined and punished by articles 408, 416, or 418 of the Penal Code; and, as
these crimes are the result of one sole act, the adequate penalty, under article 89 of the code, is that
imposed for the more serious crime, applied in its maximum degree, dividing it into three periods or
subgrades, and imposing the same in the period corresponding to the provisions of article 81 of the
Code.
2. ID.; FRUSTRATED MURDER OR HOMICIDE. — In order that the act of discharging a firearm at another
inflicting lesiones may be classified as frustrated murder or homicide, it is absolutely necessary that the
intent to deprive the assaulted person of his life be made manifest by acts which may unmistakebly tend
to attain such result by adequate means from the beginning of its execution, inasmuch as, in crimes
which blood is shed, more than in any other, the criminal considers the material effects produced by the
transgression.
DECISION
TORRES, J. :
About 7 o’clock on the evening of the 17th of September, 1892, Engracio Ronimo, a lieutenant of the
town of Calaca Batangas, being in front of the house of Geronimo Ramos in said town, noticed that a
quarrel was going on upstairs. He immediately went up to investigate the affair, and found that the
quarrel was between Eleuterio Marasigan and Severo Magsino, the latter charging Marasigan with having
stolen a bull owned by Magsino. Lieutenant Ronimo tried to take them to the municipal building, but at
that moment Arcadio de Joya, the justice of the peace, appeared before the house and, upon being
informed of what had happened, ordered all those who were in the house to come down at once;
everyone did so and after a conversation in Spanish which took place between Marasigan and the justice
of the peace, Lieutenant Ronimo became aware that they were arranging, to settle the matter. Ronimo
objecting thereto, Marasigan caught hold of the gun which the justice of the peace was carrying with him
and fired a shot at Lieutenant Ronimo who, in consequence, was wounded in the head and fell to the
around. All the foregoing happened in the presence of several witnesses who, upon examination, so
 testified.

The wounded man was promptly assisted by two curanderos, and, although the injured party declared
that it took him one month and two days to recover, that during the first twenty days he was unable to
work, and that he spent P7 which, together with other damages, amounted to P12, yet one of the
curanderos stated that the cure took twenty days, while the other said that it took only ten days. The
wounded man was later on examined by the municipal physician, who stated that he found a scar in the
left parietal region of the head as the result of a gunshot wound; that the bullet only affected the scalp
without penetrating the skull, the wound having entirely healed without further consequences; and that
by proper treatment, barring accidents or complications, cure should have been effected in from twenty
to thirty days.

Proceedings were instituted against Fleuterio Marasigan and Arcadio de Joya for the crime of lesiones
graves, and the trial court rendered judgment on the 2d of May, 1896, sentencing Eleuterio Marasigan,
for the crime of discharging a firearm and lesiones menos graves, to the penalty of three years and six
months of prision correccional with the accessory penalties, to indemnify the injured party in the sum of
P18, or to suffer subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency, and to pay one-half of the costs, one-half
of the time of his detention to count in his favor. Arcadio de Joya was acquitted, and the other half of the
costs was declared de oficio. Counsel for the accused Marasigan appealed from the above judgment, but
after the appeal was admitted, the latter disappeared and in consequence was declared in default, the
proceedings being suspended until such time as he should present himself or be arrested. This occurred
on the 3d of November, 1902, and the case was proceeded, with, the Solicitor-General asking that the
judgment appealed from be affirmed, and counsel for the accused moving that the criminal liability of the
accused be declared extinguished because he had been pardoned by the Government of the former
sovereignty. However, notwithstanding the time elapsed since February of 1903, neither he nor his
counsel have been able to produce the original of the decree of pardon alleged by them. It further
appears that the accused Arcadio de Joya, who was acquitted, has since died.

The above related facts fully proven in this case, really constitute the crime of discharge of a firearm
causing lesiones menos graves; the act can not be classified as an armed aggression by Marasigan upon
an agent of the authorities, inasmuch as it does not appear that Lieutenant Ronimo was acting or had
any occasion to act in the performance of his official duties on the night in question, as the justice of the
peace, whose duty it was to make the investigation, was on the spot; the quarrel arose from the loss of a
bull which Severo Magsino charged Marasigan with having stolen. Neither can such act be classified as
frustrated murder or homicide because the case does not contain sufficient proof that it was the intention
of the aggressor to deprive Ronimo of his life.

July-1908 Jurisprudence The accused Eleuterio Marasigan is convicted of the crime of discharge of a firearm thereby causing
lesiones, and it has been fully proven that he is the sole author thereof, since, notwithstanding his
G.R. No. 3386 July 18, 1908 - RUFO MASECAMPO v. exculpatory allegations, the case contains full evidence of his guilt as being the only person who fired a
PABLO MASECAMPO shot at Engracio Ronimo who, in consequence, was wounded in the head and fell to the ground on the
spot; moreover, several witnesses saw the accused fire the weapon at the injured party, and against the
011 Phil 1 testimony of these witnesses the declarations of certain others presented by the accused, they being his
relatives or next of kin, can not prevail. It is, therefore, unquestionable that the accused is the only one
G.R. No. 4191 July 18, 1908 - UNITED STATES v. liable for the crime with which he is charged.
LOUIS A. DOWDELL, JR., ET AL.
Whenever one sole act constitutes two or more crimes, or if one of them is the necessary means for
011 Phil 4 committing the other, the penalty corresponding to the more serious crime shall be imposed in its
maximum degree, as provided in article 89 of the Penal Code.
G.R. No. 4800 July 18, 1908 - POTENCIANO
ARAGON v. HON. MANUEL ARAULLO, ET AL.
The discharge of a firearm by the accused against the injured party, inflicting on the latter lesiones
011 Phil 7 menos graves about the head, according to the criminal law produced two offenses, one being for
discharging a firearm against a given person, defined by article 408 of the Penal Code, and the other,
G.R. No. 4360 July 22, 1908 - GO TIAM TING v. DI that of lesiones menos graves, penalized under article 418 of said code, and as both oftenses were the
PING JO, ET AL. result of one sole criminal act, the adequate penalty, according to article 89 aforesaid, is that imposed by
the laws upon the more serious one, the same being applied in its maximum degree. No mitigating or
011 Phil 10 aggravating circumstance is present in the commission of the crime herein, therefore the penalty should
be imposed in the medium grade of the maximum degree, and the penalty of three years and six months
G.R. No. 3598 July 24, 1908 - MIGUEL G. FABIE v. of prision correccional and accessories imposed on the accused, is in accordance with the law.
JULITA LICHAUCO, ET AL.
In view of the foregoing considerations, it is our opinion that the judgment appealed from should be
011 Phil 14
affirmed in all of its parts with the costs against the accused, with the approval of the order in connection
G.R. No. 280 July 25, 1908 - UNITED STATES v. with the proceedings for attachment. So ordered.
ELEUTERIO MARASIGAN
Arellano, C.J., Mapa, Carson, Willard and Tracey, JJ., concur.
011 Phil 27

G.R. No. 3841 July 26, 1908 - CHUNG KIAT v. LIM

KIO, ET AL.

011 Phil 31 Back to Home | Back to Main

G.R. No. 4101 July 27, 1908 - IN RE: JOSEFA

GARCIA PASCUAL
QUICK SEARCH
011 Phil 34

G.R. No. 4327 July 29, 1908 - UNITED STATES v.

GAUDIOSO GAMBOA, ET AL.
1901 1902 1903 1904 1905 1906 1907 1908
011 Phil 39 1909 1910 1911 1912 1913 1914 1915 1916

G.R. No. 4488 July 30, 1908 - AUSTIN CRAIG v. 1917 1918 1919 1920 1921 1922 1923 1924
SERVULO LEUTERIO 1925 1926 1927 1928 1929 1930 1931 1932

011 Phil 44 1933 1934 1935 1936 1937 1938 1939 1940
1941 1942 1943 1944 1945 1946 1947 1948
G.R. No. 4855 July 30, 1908 - ISABELO ARTACHO v.
TAN CHU CHAY, ET AL. 1949 1950 1951 1952 1953 1954 1955 1956
1957 1958 1959 1960 1961 1962 1963 1964
011 Phil 47
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 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018
 Main Indices of the Library ---> Go!

Copyright © 1998 - 2020 ChanRobles Publishing Company | Disclaimer | E-mail Restrictions ChanRobles™ Virtual Law Library™ | chanrobles.com™ RED