Between 9 and 10 o'clock of  the night of April 4,  1909, Mr. John  W. Willey, accompanied by a  friend of his, Mr. Corliss, after having been a little while in the basement of the  house where  they lived, in  which  there was a  bar, started out, in order to see the people passing in the street, in the direction of the cockpit, where there was a cinematograph in operation at the time.  After seeing a few motion pictures, and at the end of the performance, they left the premises  and started home; but, on  passing near Jose Santos, who was then standing in the street and carrying a cane  and  a bolo, the latter caught hold of Willey's right arm, asking him where he was going, to which Willey replied by asking Santos in turn why he wished to know.  At this moment Santos took a step backward, and with his right hand  seized the bolo which he had been holding in his left. Thereupon Willey asked him whether that was not a public place.   Santos replied that it was  not and that it belonged to him and ordered Willey to return by the same road over which he  had come with his  companion.   In view of the threatening attitude of Jose Santos, Willey requested that the former deliver to him the bolo that he had, as a precautionary measure to prevent Santos from wounding him with it, but the latter raised  his  bolo and immediately gave Willey a cut, inflicting in his right cheek a wound which extended from the ear to the mouth, knocking out one of the eyeteeth and breaking one upper and two lower front teeth. Wherefore Willey and his companion started off on a run toward their house where, shortly afterwards, the wounded man was attended by Doctor Silva, who was called for the purpose, and on the following day he was removed from Calamba to the Civil Hospital of this city, where  he remained for treatment of  his wounds until the end of  the 23d day of April.   On the following day,  the 24th, he returned to his house, where he continued under  medical treatment without being able to work until the 7th of May of that year, according  to the certificate of the physician who attended him, Exhibits A and B.   The said wound  caused a scar of about 5 inches  in length, from the  ear to the mouth,  as stated by  the offended party, page 9 of the record.  Dr. Silva  asserted that this scar was permanent  and that it might contract in width, but could not in length.

For the foregoing reasons,  a complaint was filed  in the Court of First Instance of La Laguna, by the acting provincial fiscal, charging Jose Santos with the crime of lesiones graves.  The case having come to trial, the judge, in view of the evidence adduced therein, rendered judgment  on the 18th  of November,  1909,  sentencing the  accused to the penalty of one year and one day's prision correccional, to the accessory penalties, to indemnify the offended party, Mr. Willey, in the sum of  P100, and, in case of insolvency, to suffer the corresponding subsidiary imprisonment, and to pay the costs.   From this judgment the defendant appealed.

From the facts related, duly proved in the present  cause, it follows that the crime of lesiones graves was in  fact committed  upon the person of John W. Willey,  inspector of telephones, which crime is provided  for and  punished  by article 416, No. 3, of the Penal Code, as follows:

"He who shall wound, bruise, or maltreat another shall be punished as guilty of causing serious physical injuries; with the penalty of prision correccional in its minimum and medium degrees if, as the result of such injuries, the person assaulted should have been  deformed,  or had lost a member not a principal one, or should have it rendered useless, or should have been, for a period of more than  ninety days, ill or disabled for  his usual occupation."

As  a  result of the assault and of the wound inflicted upon the offended party in the  right  cheek from the ear  to the mouth, one of his eyeteeth fell out and a front tooth and two other lower teeth were broken, and after more than  thirty days'  treatment, during which time he was incapacitated from  work, a long scar was left on his face which makes a visible and very noticeable deformity.  On account of such deformity, as well as because of the  loss and breaking of an eyetooth and other teeth of the injured  party, and because of the number of days  he was unable to work, the crime charged is one of a serious nature and is comprised within article 416, No, 3,  of The Penal  Code, inasmuch as the offended party was left deformed, lost an eyetooth and in a certain manner the use of other teeth, which appendages form a part of the mouth, a principal organ of the human body.   For the due classification  of the crime of lesiones, in accordance  with the provisions of the Penal Code, it is not sufficient to take account of the number of days of treatment of the wounds or of the incapacity to work; the injury occasioned and the consequences of the wound received by the offended party must also be considered.  For this reason, the  preinserted article was divided into four  paragraphs, with the  specification of each  case and. the  penalty corresponding  to each of them.  Considering the nature and consequences of the  serious wound received by the offended party, Willey, in the right side of his face, it is unquestionable that this wound, though healed in thirty days, produced a noticeable deformity of his features,  aside from the loss and damage of a part of  his teeth, which results require the imposition of a more severe penalty than for a mere lesion grave not attended by these circumstances.

The guilt of  the accused, Jose Santos, as the sole author, by direct  participation, of the  crime of lesiones graves, is manifest,  for, notwithstanding his unsupported exculpatory allegations, the record of the case furnishes conclusive proof of his guilt.  Nor can his plea of self-defense be accepted, since it was not proved at the trial that the wounds inflicted were preceded  by an unlawful assault  on  the  part of  the victim, nor  did the latter even insult  him;  On  the other hand it has been shown,  beyond all per adventure of doubt, that the defendant, on leaving the cockpit where there was a cinematographic performance, took away from a neighbor a bolo the latter was carrying, without any cause or reason why he should have provided himself with a bolo on that night, and while the offended party and a companion of his were passing near him,  the defendant, again without any motive whatever, seized Willey by the arm, asking him where he was going, and  as the  latter  in turn  asked  the defendant why he wished to know and whether  the  place where he was  passing was not a public one, the accused took  a step backward, passed the bolo  he was carrying into  his right hand and answered that it was not a public one and that the said place belonged to him.  He then ordered Willey to return by the same road over which he  had come,  and in view of the threatening attitude  of  the accused,  Willey requested the latter to deliver to him the bolo as a precautionary measure against an assault; whereupon the accused attacked Willey, giving him a cut in the right cheek.  All these facts, affirmed by the injured party, were corroborated by his companion, Mr. Corliss, and two other  eyewitnesses; wherefore it is undeniable that the defendant, after  having provoked the offended party, assaulted him without  a sufficient rational motive and without prior assault on the part of the said Willey.

It is alleged that the offended party, on demanding of the accused the delivery of the bolo, addressed insulting words to the latter, and  that when Santos  pushed him,  Willey brought his hand to his pocket as if he were about to draw a revolver.  Aside from the fact that it was not proved that Willey insulted  the defendant on  demanding of him  the delivery of the bolo, as a precaution, in view of the threatening attitude of the accused, and of the fact that the offended party was not then carrying a revolver, the request for the delivery of the bolo, although understood by  the  defendant Santos to be a threat, can in nowise be called such  an  unlawful assault or act  as might provoke in return  an  act of legitimate defense.

In  order that the aggressor may allege in his behalf  a plea of self-defense, it is absolutely essential,  as a principal element thereof, that such defense shall have been preceded by an overt attack, which the record does not  show to have occurred in the present case, for had the  accused  not seized Mr. Willey by the arm and tried to compel him, in a  hostile manner and while provided  with a bolo, to return the same way he had come, without any right whatever, as  they were both on a public highway, Willey would not have  asked the bolo of him as a wise precaution against an assault  which, in fact, did take place.

There are no aggravating nor mitigating circumstances in connection with the  commission  of the crime;  wherefore the penalty should be imposed in  the medium degree.

For the foregoing reasons, whereby the  errors  alleged have been disposed  of,  it  is  our opinion that  the judgment appealed from must be affirmed, with the proviso, however, that the defendant shall be sentenced  to the penalty of  one year eight  months and  twenty-one  days'  prision correctional, and to  pay the costs of this  instance.  So ordered.

Arellano, C. J., Johnson, Moreland, and Trent, JJ., concur.