Case Name: People, Plaintiff and Appellee, v. Oxio, Defendant and Appellant
Court: Supreme Court of Puerto Rico
Jurisdiction: Puerto Rico
Decision Date: 1923-07-12
Citations: 32 P.R. 207
Docket Number: No. 2105
Parties: People, Plaintiff and Appellee, v. Oxio, Defendant and Appellant.
Judges: Chief Justice Del Toro and Justices Wolf, Hutchison and Franco Soto concurred.
Reporter: Puerto Rico Reports
Volume: 32
Pages: 207–208

Head Matter:
People, Plaintiff and Appellee, v. Oxio, Defendant and Appellant.
Appeal from the District Court of Mayagüez in a Prosecution for Assault and Battery.
No. 2105.
Decided July 12, 1923.
Pleading — Bill op Particulars. — When a defendant desires fuller information as to the place where the crime was alleged to have been committed his remedy is to ask for a hill of particulars.
Evidence — Blind Witness. — The testimony of a blind man, if satisfactory, may be sufficient to prove the commission of a crime.
The facts are stated in the opinion.
Mr. A. A. Vázquez for the appellant.
Mr. José E. Figueras) Fiscal, for the appellee.

Opinion:
MR. Justice A ldbey
delivered the opinion of the court.
The complaint in this case was filed in the Municipal Court of Mayagüez after having been sworn to before the clerk of' that court. It charges the appellant with the commission of assault and battery upon the person of the complainant "on the premises of Pedro Ronda in the municipal judicial district of Mayagüez."
The said complaint was sufficient to give jurisdiction to the municipal court as well as to the district court on appeal from tbe judgment rendered by tbe former, and if tbe defendant desired fuller information with regard to tbe locality be should bave asked for sucb specification. People v. París, 25 P. R. R. 103.
Tbe evidence was contradictory and although tbe only witness for tbe prosecution was blind, we can not bold that the court erred in believing bis testimony, for from tbe manner in which be testified it can be concluded that it was sufficient to prove the commission of the crime charged.
Those being tbe two grounds of appeal, the judgment must be
Affirmed. •
Chief Justice Del Toro and Justices Wolf, Hutchison and Franco Soto concurred.