US vs Marasigan G.R. No. L- 9426 August 15, 1914

The United States vs Filomeno Marasigan

 

Facts:

At about 1600 Hours, of January 23, 1913, Filomeno Marasigan and his wife asked Francisco Mendoza was examining his sugar crop upon his lands in the barrio of Irucan, now called, Calayan in Taal, Batangas to approach the spouses.  On Mendoza’s arrival, Marasigan asked on why the division line between their lands was curved, and should be made straight.  In which  Francisco replied that if they will make the line straight, it will put certain logs and trees on the land of Marasigan. To this Marasigan replied that it is incorrect, then he drew his knife and struck at Mendoza.  Mendoza attempted to ward off the blow was cut in the left hand. 

 

The accused continue to attack Mendoza, in which Mendoza seized the accused by the neck and the body and threw him down.  Mendoza seized the hand of Marasigan which holds the dagger when the accused continued to attack him, and attempted to loosen his hold upon it.  As they were fighting for the possession of the dagger, the wife of the accused took hold of the knife and threw it on the side.  She then seized who after various maneuvers, struck Mendoza and knocked him senseless.

 

As a result of the fight Mendoza received three wounds, two in the chest and one in the left hand, the latter being the most serious, the extensor tendor in one of the seven days at a cost of about P45, but the middle finger of the left hand was rendered useless.

 

The accused asserts that he should have a new trial upon the ground that if he should be given another opportunity to present evidence that the finger which the court found to have been rendered useless could be restored to its normal condition.

 

 

Issue :

Whether or not the accused be granted a new trial upon the ground that he would be given an opportunity to present evidence that the finger which the court found to have been rendered useless by the cut already described was not necessarily a useless member, inasmuch as, if the accused would permit a surgical operation, the finger could be restored to its normal condition.

 

Held :

No, it is unsufficient to warrant a new trial.  Since it is immaterial for the purposes of this case whether the finger, the usefulness of which was destroyed, was the middle finger or the third finger. That, all agreed that one of the fingers of the left hand was rendered useless by the act of the accused. It does not matter which finger it was. It was Marasigan’s voluntary act which disabled Mendoza and he must abide by the consequences resulting therefrom without aid from Mendoza.

 

The judgment appealed from is affirmed, with costs against the appellant.