United States vs. Herrera

Medical attendance for more than eight days is sufficient to classify a wound as lesiones menos graves under article 418 of the Penal Code, even if the injured party was not incapacitated for work for more than eight days; and the ordinary excitement of a quarrel is not the mitigating circumstance of powerful excitement under article 9, circumstance 7, which requires special motives.

Ciriaco Herrera was prosecuted by the United States under the Penal Code for wounding Silvestre Bautista. The appeal turned on article 418 of the Penal Code, which classifies lesiones menos graves, and article 9, circumstance 7, which recognizes acting under powerful excitement that produces entire loss of reason and self-control.

Ciriaco Herrera and Silvestre Bautista fought, wrestling together without using any weapon. After they were separated for the third time, Bautista recovered his hat and was getting into his vehicle when Herrera followed him up and wounded him in the right sacrolumbal region. The wound caused a lesión that required medical attendance for more than eight days. Bautista testified that he was wounded in the buttock when he was already in the carretela; he did not see Herrera when he was struck, but when he turned around he saw Herrera running away with a penknife in his hand.

• Classification of the Offense: Appellant argued that because the injured party was not incapacitated for work for more than eight days, the accused could not be prosecuted as guilty of lesiones menos graves but simply for misdemeanor.
• Mitigating Circumstance: Appellant argued that circumstance 7 of article 9 of the Penal Code should have been taken into account, that is, that the accused acted under such powerful excitement that it naturally produced entire loss of reason and self-control.

• Classification of the Offense: Whether the wound, which required medical attendance for more than eight days but did not incapacitate the injured party for work for more than eight days, constitutes lesiones menos graves under article 418 of the Penal Code.
• Mitigating Circumstance: Whether the accused acted under such powerful excitement as to produce entire loss of reason and self-control, so that mitigating circumstance No. 7 of article 9 of the Penal Code should be considered.

• Classification of the Offense: Yes. The fact that the injured party required medical attendance for more than eight days is sufficient to classify the deed as lesiones menos graves under article 418 of the Penal Code, even if he was not incapacitated for work.
• Mitigating Circumstance: No. The excitement inherent in quarreling and coming to blows is not sufficient; the accused must have acted under the impulse of special motives classifiable according to existing circumstances.

• Classification of the Offense: The SC rejected the defense’s premise that the absence of incapacity for work for more than eight days limited the offense to a misdemeanor. While the injured party may not have been rendered unable to work, the fact remained that he required medical attendance for more than eight days. Under article 418 of the Penal Code, that fact was a sufficient reason to classify the deed as the crime of lesiones menos graves.
• Mitigating Circumstance: The SC held that mitigating circumstance No. 7 of article 9 could not be considered. It was an established rule of jurisprudence that the existence of the excitement inherent to all persons quarreling and coming to blows was not sufficient. The guilty party must act under the impulse of special motives which may be classified according to existing circumstances. The SC cited the decisions of the supreme court of Spain of October 27, 1883, and January 10, 1870.

• Lesiones menos graves by medical attendance — A wound requiring medical attendance for more than eight days is classified as lesiones menos graves under article 418 of the Penal Code, even if the injured party is not incapacitated for work for more than eight days. The SC applied this because Bautista required medical attendance for more than eight days.
• Powerful excitement as a mitigating circumstance — The mitigating circumstance under article 9, circumstance 7, requires that the accused acted under the impulse of special motives classifiable according to existing circumstances. The excitement inherent in every quarrel and coming to blows is insufficient. The SC applied this to deny the mitigation.

• "While the injured party may not have been rendered unable to work, the fact is that he required medical attendance for more than eight days, which is a sufficient reason to classify the deed as the crime of lesiones menos graves according to article 418 of the Penal Code." — This is the SC’s core ruling on the classification of the offense despite the absence of incapacity for work.
• "Mitigating circumstance No. 7 of article 9 can not be considered in this case, because it is established rule of jurisprudence that, in order to consider said rule, the existence of that excitement which is inherent to all persons quarreling and coming to blows is not sufficient, but that it is necessary that the guilty party shall act under the impulse of special motives which may be classified according to existing circumstances." — This states the rule denying the claimed mitigating circumstance.
• "Therefore, the judgment appealed from should be affirmed with the costs of this instance against the appellant." — This is the SC’s dispositive order affirming the conviction.

• Decisions of the supreme court of Spain, October 27, 1883 and January 10, 1870 — Cited as jurisprudence for the rule that the ordinary excitement of a quarrel is insufficient and that special motives are required for the mitigating circumstance.

• Article 418, Penal Code — Applied to classify the deed as lesiones menos graves because the injured party required medical attendance for more than eight days.
• Article 9, circumstance 7, Penal Code — Invoked by the defense but not applied; the SC required special motives beyond the excitement inherent in quarreling and coming to blows.