United States vs. Abalos

Acts of a judge who continues to exercise judicial functions after his court is extinguished by a new organic law, but before new judges assume office, are valid as acts of a de facto judge in good faith and cannot be annulled for lack of jurisdiction. A dagger attack that causes serious abdominal injury and a hernia exposing the victim to grave accidents constitutes grave assault under article 416, No. 3, Penal Code, with nighttime and dwelling as aggravating circumstances.

Cayetano Abalos and Pedro Pascua were, respectively, the accused and the injured party in a case for grave assault in Santa Maria, Ilocos Sur. Act No. 136, passed June 11, 1901 and effective June 16, 1901, extinguished the Court of First Instance then existing and substituted the courts created by that Act. Incumbent judges continued exercising their functions until newly appointed judges arrived, and the validity of acts done during that interval was drawn into question.

Shortly after 8 o’clock in the evening of October 23, 1900, six unknown persons presented themselves in the immediate vicinity of the house of Pedro Pascua in the pueblo of Santa Maria, Province of Ilocos Sur. One of them ordered the man within the house to come down, but Pascua did not do so because of fear. One of the unknown persons, who was later recognized and proved to be Cayetano Abalos, went up into the house. Without any apparent motive, Abalos struck Pascua repeated blows with a dagger, inflicting five wounds, two of which—in the left side of the chest and in the abdomen—were serious and dangerous according to the medical practitioner who examined him. The patient was cured in thirty-one days, but an opening remained in the abdominal region that produced a hernia and exposed him to grave accidents. Notwithstanding the aggressor’s immediate attempt to escape, he was recognized.

At the trial Abalos pleaded not guilty. The evidence established the facts and his guilt through two eyewitnesses who confirmed the accusation and, together with Pascua, recognized Abalos at the time of the assault. Three neighbors, attracted by the cries of Pascua’s wife, were then informed of what had taken place and that the attacking person was Cayetano Abalos. Abalos was absent and disappeared from his house from the date of the occurrence; despite judicial citations he did not appear until he was arrested on April 3 of that year. The justices of the peace of the districts of Ilocos Sur and Union and the local president of Narvacan gave answers proving this absence.

Abalos attempted to prove an alibi through the testimony of his wife and daughter. Two other witnesses whom he had also cited testified that Abalos absented himself from his house, going, according to one of them, to the town of San Jose de Abra. The answers of the justices of the peace and the local president contradicted and destroyed the alibi. The CFI found Abalos fully convicted as principal by direct participation of the crime of assault of grave character on Pedro Pascua.

• Grave Assault and Aggravating Circumstances: Whether Cayetano Abalos is guilty as principal by direct participation of grave assault under article 416, No. 3, Penal Code, with nighttime and dwelling as aggravating circumstances under article 10, Nos. 15 and 20.
• Validity of Acts of De Facto Judges: Whether the judgment is void because the judge continued to exercise judicial functions after Act No. 136 took effect on June 16, 1901, and before newly appointed judges assumed office.

• Grave Assault and Aggravating Circumstances: Yes. The SC found Abalos guilty as principal by direct participation of grave assault under article 416, No. 3, and considered nighttime and dwelling as aggravating circumstances, imposing the penalty in its maximum degree.
• Validity of Acts of De Facto Judges: No. The judge was a de facto judge in good faith under color of office and accepted by common error; his acts were valid, and no usurpation of jurisdiction could be imputed to him.

• Grave Assault and Aggravating Circumstances: The SC applied article 416, No. 3, Penal Code, which classifies a wound as grave assault by its consequences. The abdominal wound left an opening that produced a hernia and exposed Pascua to grave accidents, so the deed was lesion grave under article 416, No. 3, and the penalty was imposed in its maximum degree. The SC considered article 10, Nos. 15 and 20, because Abalos availed himself of the darkness and silence of the night and attacked Pascua in his own house without provocation. It did not consider article 11 mitigating circumstances because of the nature of the crime and found no other extenuating circumstance. The prosecution evidence—two eyewitnesses, Pascua’s recognition, three neighbors informed of the attack, and Abalos’s unexplained absence and arrest on April 3—established guilt; the alibi of his wife and daughter was contradicted by two witnesses and the official answers on his absence.
• Validity of Acts of De Facto Judges: Act No. 136 was passed June 11, 1901, and took effect June 16, 1901; it extinguished the old Court of First Instance and substituted the new courts. The old judges should have ceased acting on June 16, but almost all continued until newly appointed judges arrived. The SC found this arose from ignorance of the new organization or from prior laws requiring certain prior acts to avoid criminal responsibility for abandonment and from the need to avoid a gap in the administration of justice. The public continued to recognize them as true and legitimate judges. They were therefore de facto judges of the new courts and in good faith; no usurpation of jurisdiction could be imputed. The SC invoked the doctrine that acts of judges considered such by common error, whether with color of title or not, are valid and effective in favor of public welfare, and cited Norton vs. Shelby County and Spanish law. The judgment was not null.

• De facto judges and common error — A judge who exercises judicial functions under color of office and is accepted as a judge by common error is a de facto judge. The doctrine requires that the judge be considered such by common error; color of title may exist or not, and the acts done in virtue of the office are valid and effective in favor of the public welfare. The SC applied this to judges who continued after Act No. 136 took effect on June 16, 1901, because they acted in good faith and the public recognized them as legitimate judges; no usurpation of jurisdiction could be imputed.
• Grave assault (lesion grave) under article 416, No. 3, Penal Code — The classification of the offense depends on the consequences produced by the wound. A wound that causes serious danger or leaves a condition exposing the victim to grave accidents is grave assault. The SC applied this to the abdominal wound, which left an opening and produced a hernia.
• Aggravating circumstances of nighttime and dwelling — Nighttime and dwelling may aggravate the offense when the offender avails himself of the darkness and silence of the night and attacks the victim in his own house without provocation. The SC applied both circumstances under article 10, Nos. 15 and 20.
• Alibi — An alibi must be credible and must not be destroyed by eyewitness identification, flight, or official evidence of absence. The SC rejected Abalos’s alibi because the victim and two eyewitnesses identified him, three neighbors were informed of his identity, and his unexplained absence was proved by official answers.

• “It is a universally professed doctrine that the acts of judges, considered such by common error, whether there be color of title or not (as in this case there was), are valid and effective in favor of the public welfare.” — This states the de facto judge doctrine the SC applied to uphold the judgment.
• “Therefore they were judges of the new courts de facto and in good faith. No usurpation of jurisdiction can be imputed to them. As such judges they were accepted by common error.” — This is the SC’s conclusion on the status of the judges who continued after Act No. 136 took effect.
• “There should be considered in the perpetration of the crime the concurrence of the aggravating circumstances Nos. 15 and 20 of article 10 of the Code, since the defendant committed the same by availing himself of the darkness and silence of the night, attacking the complainant in his own house without the latter's having provoked or given reason for the deed.” — This identifies the aggravating circumstances the SC credited against Abalos.
• “Since on account of the consequences produced by the wound of the abdomen, the deed must be classed as constituting a grave assault (lesion grave) included in article 416, No. 3, of the Penal Code, it follows that the accused has incurred the penalty prescribed in the aforesaid article and number in the maximum degree.” — This states the basis for classifying the offense and imposing the penalty in its maximum degree.

• Norton vs. Shelby County, 118 U.S. 425, 445-446 — cited by the SC as American authority supporting the validity of acts of de facto judges.

• Article 416, No. 3, Penal Code — applied to classify the abdominal wound and resulting hernia as grave assault and to impose the prescribed penalty in its maximum degree.
• Article 10, Nos. 15 and 20, Penal Code — applied to consider nighttime and dwelling as aggravating circumstances because Abalos availed himself of darkness and silence and attacked Pascua in his own house without provocation.
• Article 11, Penal Code — the SC declined to consider mitigating circumstances because of the nature of the crime and found no other extenuating circumstance.
• Article 61, Penal Code — applied to impose the accessory penalties.
• Act No. 136, articles 65 and 92 — Act No. 136 extinguished the old Court of First Instance and substituted new courts; it was passed June 11, 1901 and took effect June 16, 1901, supplying the context for the de facto judge issue.
• Ninety-third rule No. 3, Provisional Law for the Application of the Penal Code — applied so that Abalos’s provisional imprisonment was not computed because he fell within the exception.
• Law 4, title 4, Third Partida; Law 5, title 1, Book XI, Novisima Recopilacion — cited by the SC as Spanish-law support for the validity of acts done by a judge later discovered to lack status, where the public regarded him as judge by common error.