Case ID: pr_34/html/0420-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Mr. Justice Aldrey", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

People of Porto Rico, Plaintiff and Appellee, v. Aurelio Bauzá, Defendant and Appellant.
    No. 2526.
    Decided on reconsideration July 8, 1926
    Adulteration of Milk — Judgment op Conviction — Specification op Offense.— Modification on Appeal. — When, the judgment does not specify the offense of which the defendant was convicted, hut the record shows the crime with which he was charged, the judgment may be modified on appeal in the sense that the defendant was convicted of that offense.
    Motion for reconsideration.
    
      Judgment modified and affirmed.
    
    
      Domingo Sepulveda for the appellant. José E. Figueras, Fiscal, for the- appellee.
   Mr. Justice Aldrey

delivered the opinion of the court.

In the present case we considered the errors assigned by the appellant in support of a reversal and affirmed the judgment. People v. Bauzá, ante, page 319. Thereafter the appellant filed a motion for reconsideration of our judgment, wherein while not assailing the grounds on which it was based he alleges for the first time that the judgment of the district court was null and void because it found the defendant guilty of the offense as charged without specifying it, citing the cases of People v. Campos, 17 P.R.R. 1144; People v. Fernández, 19 P.R.R. 107; People v. Seda, ante, page 202; People v. Trinidad, June 15, 1925, and People v. De Jesús, ante, page 332.

It is true that the judgment appealed from is faulty in that it fails to specify the offense of which the defendant was found guilty, but as the record shows that he was charged with adulterating milk and was tried for that offense, we are in a position to and should correct the judgment of the trial court as was done in the case of People v. Trinidad, 24 P.R.R. 826, and People v. Alvarez, 21 P.R.R. 80. Therefore, we shall set aside our judgment of June 5, 1925, and substitute it by another modifying the judgment of the court below so as to specify that the defendant was found guilty of the offense of having adulterated cow's milk for sale. As so modified the judgment is affirmed.