Case ID: pr_25/html/0493-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Mb. Justice Audrey MB. JUSTICE DEL TORO. •", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

People, Plaintiff and Appellee, v. Berríos, Defendant and Appellant.
    Appeal from the District Court of Ponce in a Prosecution for Violation of the Civil Service Law.
    No. 1118.
    Decided July 9, 1917.
    Decided on the grounds of the opinion delivered in Case No. 1084, People v. Wys, ante.
    
    
      Messrs. Rafael Martinez■ Nadal, Manuel F. Bossy and* Juan Bautista Soto for appellant.
    
      Messrs. Howard L. Kern, Attorney General, and Salvador Mestte, fiscal, for the appellee.
   Mb. Justice Audrey

delivered the opinion of the court.

Although the appellant did not demur to the information in the lower court, nevertheless in arguing’ his appeal he alleges in the first place that the information is insufficient to support the judgment of conviction entered against him because it does not state facts constituting a crime.

In the case of People v. Wys, decided today, we have considered carefully an information similar to the one under which the appellant was convicted and following the reason-ings set out in the opinion delivered in that case, we are forced to the conclusion that the information against Aniceto Berrios did not charge any crime.

Reversed.

Chief Justice Hernandez and Justice Wolf concurred.

Justices del Toro and Hutchison dissented.

DISSENTING OPINION OE

MB. JUSTICE DEL TORO. •

The defendant was convicted by the District Court of Ponce of violating section 14 of the Civil Service Act (sec. 313 of the Eev. Stats, of Porto Bico, Comp, of 1911). He appealed and the majority of the justices of this court held that the judgment appealed from should be reversed, following the principles established in the opinion in the case of People v. Wys, decided July 9, 1917. I cannot concur. I have stated at some length my reasons therefor in my dissenting opinion in the said case of People v. Wys, and I need only refer thereto as grounds for my dissent.