[ G.R. No. 12694, September 06, 1917 ]
THE UNITED STATES, PLAINTIFF AND APPELLEE, VS. BALDOMERA ESPARCIA, DEFENDANT AND APPELLEE.
D E C I S I O N
MALCOLM, J.:
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 "castrare," inadequately translated into English as "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, Cddigo 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.