Documentos de Académico
Documentos de Profesional
Documentos de Cultura
444
disorder which prevailed on the date of the occurrence there should be taken into
account the circumstance mentioned in article 11 of the Code for the sole purpose
of reducing the penalty.
Neither does justice require the admission of the contention made at the trial court
by the counsel for the defense, to wit, that Leoncio Alfont fired at the deceased
because she disobeyed an order prohibiting the passing of a line established by the
insurgents because the band captained by Alfont was made up of seditious
uprisers who went about from place to place without discipline or organization, and
on the scene of the occurrence there was neither trench, line of defense, military
position, nor established encampment with military rules, methods, or regulators.
Therefore it was impossible that there should have been a violation of the same on
the part of the deceased which could justify or excuse her violent death, and for
that reason the criminal act in question must be treated as an ordinary crime
committed during rebellion or sedition, and to be punished according to article 244
of the Penal Code and the provisions thereof, since the death of Eduviges
Monteclaro was not necessary or indispensable to the object and purpose of the
rebels.
Based upon the considerations set forth it is deemed proper to affirm the sentence
appealed from, it being understood furthermore that the defendant is condemned to
the payment of an indemnity of 1,000 Mexican pesos to the widower and heirs of
the deceased and to the payment of costs. It is so ordered.
Arellano, C.J., Cooper, and Mapa, JJ., concur.
Ladd, J., did not sit in this case.