Case Name: The People, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. Moux, Defendant and Appellant
Court: Supreme Court of Puerto Rico
Jurisdiction: Puerto Rico
Decision Date: 1913-12-22
Citations: 19 P.R. 1119
Docket Number: No. 647
Parties: The People, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. Moux, Defendant and Appellant.
Judges: Chief Justice Hernández and Justices del Toro and AI drey concurred.
Reporter: Puerto Rico Reports
Volume: 19
Pages: 1119–1120

Head Matter:
The People, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. Moux, Defendant and Appellant.
Appeal from the District Court of San Juan, Section 2, in a case of aggravated assault and battery.
No. 647.
Decided December 22, 1913.
Aggravated Assault and Battery — Cruelty—Light Punishment.- — Although the sentence in this case of $100 fine or imprisonment for one clay for each $2 which the accused failed to pay, is light in view of the cruelty of the offense charged, consisting in the punishment of a child by hanging his body from a rope, the judgment appealed from is affirmed because, no statement of the case having been filed, it is not possible to determine whether there were extenuating circumstances which influenced the sentence.
The facts are stated in the opinion.
Mr. Charles E. Foote, fiscal, for The People.
The accused did not appear.

Opinion:
Mr. Justice Wole
delivered the opinion of the court.
This criminal appeal comes before us on the judgment roll alone and without a statement of the ease or bill of exceptions. There is no possibility of reversal and no justification for appeal inasmuch as the complaint shows a clear case of aggravated assault. We are told by the complaint that Lean-dro Moux in the early part of May, 1913, voluntarily and maliciously assaulted the child Bernardo Moux, punishing him cruelly and hanging his body from a rope. The crime as charged seems to be unusually cruel but the defendant was only sentenced to $100 fine or in its default to be imprisoned one day for each $2 he failed to pay. This punishment does not seem proportional to the gravity of the crime charged but it may perhaps be justified by the concurrence of mitigating circumstances, which we do not know to have existed, as the proof is not before us. The judgment must be affirmed.
Affirmed.
Chief Justice Hernández and Justices del Toro and AI drey concurred.
Mr. Justice MacLeary took no part in this decision.