Republic of the Philippines
SUPREME COURT
Manila
EN BANC
G.R. No. 12694 September 6, 1917
THE UNITED STATES, plaintiff-appellee,
vs.
BALDOMERA ESPARCIA, defendant-appellee.
Leopoldo Rovira for appellant.
Acting Attorney-General Paredes for appellee.
MALCOLM, J.:
The defendant and appellant was charged in the Court of First Instance of Oriental Negros with the crime of serious physical injuries as punished by article 46, paragraph 1, of the Penal Code. She was convicted and sentenced under this provision. The facts established at the trial are so filthy that we feel that it will serve no good purpose to set them forth. We merely content ourselves with the statement that the findings of the trial court as to the sufficiency of the proof should be adhered to.
The sole point which it is desirable to discuss is whether or not the crime committed is that defined and penalized by article 414 of the Penal Code. The English translation of this article reads: "Any person who shall intentionally castrate another shall suffer a penalty ranging from reclusion temporal to reclusion perpetua." The Spanish text, which should govern, uses the word "castrate." The word "capar," which is synonymous of "castrar," is defined in the Royal Academic Dictionary as the destruction of the organs of generation or conception. Clearly it is the intention of the law to punish any person who shall intentionally deprived another of any organ necessary for reproduction. An applicable construction is that of Viada in the following language:
At the head of these crimes, according to their order of gravity, is the mutilation known by the name of "castration" which consists of the amputation of whatever organ is necessary for generation. The law could not fail to punish with the utmost severity such a crime, which, although not destroying life, deprives a person of the means to transmit it. But bear in mind that according to this article in order for "castration" to exist, it is indispensable that the "castration" be made purposely. The law does not look only to the result but also to the intention of the act. Consequently, if by reason of an injury or attack, a person is deprived of the organs of generation, the act, although voluntary, not being intentional to that end, it would not come under the provisions of this article, but under No. 2 of article 431. (Viada, Codigo Penal, vol. 3, p. 70. See to same effect, 4 Groizard, Codigo Penal, p. 525.)
The fact that the fiscal erroneously classified the crime is of no importance since the body of the complaint sufficiently describes the crime penalized by article 414. There were present in the commission of the crime the aggravating circumstances of nocturnity, of being the spouse of the offended party, and of premeditation. Since the defendant is less than eighteen years of age, the penalty must be reduced one degree. Accordingly, the appropriate penalty is prision mayor in its maximum degree.
The defendant and appellant is found guilty of a violation of article 414 of the Penal Code and is sentenced to twelve years of prision mayor, with the costs of this instance. So ordered.
Arellano, C.J., Johnson, Carson, Araullo and Street, JJ., concur.
The Lawphil Project - Arellano Law Foundation
