Case Name: People of Porto Rico, Plaintiff and Appellee, v. Pedro Rosario, Defendant and Appellant
Court: Supreme Court of Puerto Rico
Jurisdiction: Puerto Rico
Decision Date: 1929-01-31
Citations: 39 P.R. 75
Docket Number: No. 3464
Parties: People of Porto Rico, Plaintiff and Appellee, v. Pedro Rosario, Defendant and Appellant.
Judges: 
Reporter: Puerto Rico Reports
Volume: 39
Pages: 75–77

Head Matter:
People of Porto Rico, Plaintiff and Appellee, v. Pedro Rosario, Defendant and Appellant.
No. 3464.
Argued November 23, 1928.
Decided January 31, 1929.
A. A. Miranda and E. Delgado Ramos for the appellant. José E. Figueras for the appellee.

Opinion:
Mr. Justice Wolf
delivered the opinion of the court.
In a prosecution for carrying a prohibited weapon at the conclusion of the testimony the District Court of Humacao, after asking about the previous record of the prisoner, said: "Then the court imposes upon you thirty-five days in jail without costs." Under all the precedents, this was, in cases of misdemeanors at least, a well understood shorthand way for the court to find a defendant guilty and sentence him. The pronouncement as made would have been sufficient in this case or could have been made so. Authorities for this conclusion will be found in 8 R.C.L. 231, People v. Rodríguez, 35 P.R.R. 253, and Ex parte Gibson, 31 Cal. 620. Nevertheless, the defendant appealed and assigned as error that the court, before sentencing the prisoner, should first have found him guilty of the crime charged.
The same day, and hence within the time ivhich a court has for correcting an erroneous judgment, if one arises, the court rendered a formal judgment in which it found the defendant guilty and sentenced him to thirty-five days in jail. It is almost inconceivable that an assignment of error like "this should be seriously made.
Another assignment of error was that the court should have permitted the testimony of a witness who on cross-examination was asked whether another witness had not made a statement that the pistol in question belonged not to the defendant but to the prosecuting witness. The assignment is summarily discussed in the brief. The offered testi mony was prima facie entirely hearsay and certainty was not duly offered to contradict a witness.
We find no reason to question the weighing of the evidence and the judgment will he affirmed.