Case ID: pr_23/html/0548-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Mr. Justice del Toro", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

The People, Plaintiff and Appellee, v. Morales, Defendant Appellant.
    Appeal from the District Court of Gruayama in a Prosecution for Violation of the Internal Revenue Law.
    Motion of the Fiscal for Leave to Correct the Record.
    No. 922.
    Decided March 10, 1916.
    Internal Revenue — Judgment—Amendment—Appeal—Correction op Record.— A judgment was rendered in this case "convicting the accused of violating the internal revenue law.” After an appeal had been taken on the ground, among others, that the judgment was insufficient because it did not specify the offense committed by the defendant, the trial court, on motion of the fisoal, amended the said judgment to the effect that the accused was "guilty of violating sections 17, 18 and 21 of the License Tax Act of March 8, 1905, as amended by the Acts of March 14, 1907, March 9, 1911, and August 9, 1913.” The fiscal of this court having moved for leave to amend the record so as to substitute the amended judgment for the original judgment, it was held that in such circumstances the motion should be overruled.
    Tbe facts are stated in tbe opinion.
    Tbe appellant did not appear.
    
      Mr. Salvador Mestre, fiscal, for tbe appellee. .
   Mr. Justice del Toro

delivered the opinion of tbe court.

On June 9, 1915, a judgment was rendered in this case “convicting the accused of violating the Internal Revenue Act.” On the same day she appealed to this court and the record having been sent up, her attorney filed his brief on September 28, 1915, praying for a reversal of the judgment on the ground, among others, that the said judgment was insufficient according to the doctrine laid down by this court in the case of The People v. Campos, 17 P. R. R. 1147, because it did not specify the offense committed by the defendant. .On December 22, 1915, on motion of the fiscal, the trial court amended the judgment appealed from to the effect that “the accused was guilty of violating sections 17, 18 and 21 of the License Tax Act of March 8, 1905, as amended on March 14, 1907, March 9, 1911, and August 9, 1913.”

This being the status of the case, the fiscal of this court moved for leave to amend the transcript of the record so as to substitute the amended judgment of December 22, last, for the original judgment rendered by the court. The defendant was notified of the fiscal’s motion but has taken no action with regard thereto.

In our opinion the fiscal’s motion cannot be sustained. As we have seen, the amendment was made six months after the judgment was rendered and after an appeal had been taken therefrom, one of the grounds of the said appeal being the alleged error which was sought to be corrected by the amendment. Under such circumstances we are forced to the above conclusion. See Martínez v. Delgado et al., 18 P. R. R. 373.

Motion overruled.

Chief Justice Hernández and Justices Wolf, Aldrey and Hutchison concurred.