G.R. No. 1344. January 19, 1904

The defendants, charged with the murder of Benito Perez, were convicted by
the trial court of the offense of lesiones menos graves, and sentenced to six
months of arresto mayor the payment of 100 Mexican pesos as damages to
the heirs of the deceased, and to the costs of the trial.

From the evidence introduced at the trial it appears that late at night on
February 4, 1903, the deceased, Benito Perez, Policarpo Guevara, and Felipe
Bautista, were arrested in their respective houses by the defendants; that
“Valentin Trono was a subinspector of the municipal police of the town of
Hagonoy; that he was accompanied by two municipal policemen named Jose and
Agustin; that the deceased and his companions were suspected of the theft of a
revolver belonging to one Maximo Angeles; that when Benito Perez was arrested he
was in good health, not suffering from any disease; that he and his companions,
Guevara and Bautista, were taken by their captors to a place called
Sapang-Angelo and there beaten and illtreated, and that while they were
undergoing this ill treatment Benito was heard to beg Maximo to pardon him,
uttering the following words: “Maximo, have pity on me or else kill me at once;”
that the blows inflicted left Policarpo Guevara breathless for some time and
caused Felipe Bautista to suffer pains in the region of the heart for about an
hour; that Benito Perez was so severely ill treated that in order to reach the
municipal building of the town, to which the prisoners were taken after the ill
treatment was inflicted upon them, he was obliged to lean upon the policeman
Jose for the whole distance; that he was unable to stand, and furthermore
complained of sharp pains in the abdomen; that when the prisoners were brought
before the municipal president the following day they were discharged by him, as
nothing was brought out against them in the investigation made concerning the
theft of Maximo Angeles’s revolver, which had led to their detention. Further,
that Benito Perez, on account of the condition in which he had been left, was
unable to return to his house alone, and that therefore a brother of his, named
Estanislao, was obliged to take him from the municipal building to his home in a
boat; that upon arrival at his home the deceased was obliged to go to bed, and
his mother, Candelaria de los Santos, found his condition to be so serious that
she immediately reported the facts to the justice of the peace of the town,
denouncing the persons who had ill treated Benito as guilty of the crime of
attempted homicide; that during the short time that the deceased was in bed he
was unable to eat, urinated with great difficulty, and expelled with his urine
drops of blood; that he complained of intense pains in the stomach and told his
family that the pains were the result of blows inflicted upon him with a gun and
other ill treatment received by him, and that his injuries would be the death of
him. The deceased died on the morning of the day following—that is, February 6,
1903. At the time that Benito Perez and his companions were arrested each of the
defendants was armed with a revolver and that Policemen Jose and Agustin were
armed with guns.

The defense admits the fact of the arrest of Benito Perez and of Felipe
Bautista and Policarpo Guevara by the defendants, but denies that they
illtreated the said Benito. Nevertheless the proof for the prosecution upon this
point is conclusive.

Felipe Bautista and Policarpo Guevara, who were with Benito Perez at the time
of his arrest, after testifying that Perez was separated from them by their
captors a distance of from 8 to 10 brazas at a place called Sapang-Angelo, they
proceeded to testify that they heard blows inflicted on Benito and his groans
and his supplications to Maximo to pardon him; both of them believed—for they
were unable to see owing to the darkness of the night—that the blows were
inflicted with a gun, owing to the fact Maximo Angeles took the gun which was
carried by the policeman Agustin, who was standing beside the witness when he
commenced to illtreat Benito.

The testimony of these witnesses has been corroborated by that of Pedro
Santos, who was sent, together with one Esperidion, by Benito’s mother to follow
the latter and observe what was being done to him. This witness says that while
Benito and his captors were on the edge of the estero and he and his companion,
Esperidion, on the opposite bank some 10 brazas away from the place where the
others were, he heard them beating Benito with the butt of a gun, and heard the
latter’s groans and his supplications to Maximo and Valentin for pardon. They
testified that they heard him say that if they would not pardon him they had
better put him out of his misery at once.

It was not necessary that the witnesses should see the actual blows struck.
It was sufficient that they heard them in order to be able to testify as to the
fact that the blows were struck, more especially when the sound of the blows was
followed by groans, showing suffering of the victim. The fact that the blows
were struck with a gun or some other instrument is a circumstance of so
accidental a character that it can not affect the reality of the facts in the
case. Even if the blows had been struck with a club the result would be the same
upon proof of the fact that the blows were struck and of the consequences
thereof. But in the present case the witnesses had good reason for believing that the
blows were struck with guns, for this was the weapon which Maximo used when
striking and beating Benito. It is true that he might have struck him with the
hand alone or with a revolver, which Maximo also carried on that occasion (it
does not appear that he had any other weapon), but we believe that it can not be
absolutely asserted that it is impossible to distinguish by the sense of hearing
blows given with the hand or with a revolver from those caused by a gun, taking
into consideration the larger dimension and weight of the latter weapon and
consequently the greater force and increased sound which would be produced by
the blows inflicted with such an implement.

In addition to what has been testified by the foregoing witnesses, there is
material evidence of the battery of Benito Perex shown by the testimony of
Felipe Bautista and Policarpo Guevara, who testified that, after hearing the
blows given to the former, they saw him unable to stand and complaining of sharp
pains in the abdomen and being compelled to walk leaning on the policeman Jose,
in order to be able to reach the municipal building of the town.

Evidence is likewise found in the fact that different parts of his body, such
as the neck, hands, ribs, arms, and abdomen were seen by the witnesses,
Estanislao Perez, Raymundo Perez, Juliana de los Santos, and Candelaria de los
Santos, to be bruised and swollen.

The municipal president of Hagonoy, Jose It. Lopez, a witness on behalf of
the defense, likewise must have observed something abnormal about Benito Perez
when brought before him on the following morning, because he inquired of him, as
testified by said president, whether he was ill, to which Benito replied that he
was. The president testified that what moved him to make such inquiry was the
fact that he noticed that Benito’s face was pale; but according to Policarpo
Guevara this was due to the fact that Benito was unable to remain on his feet in
the presence of the president, in spite of the orders of the accused, Valentin,
who told him to stand up. We give credit to the statement of the witness Guevara
because it is not natural that the mere pallor on the face of a person who
appears before an official accused of a crime should attract the latter’s
attention to the point of moving him to inquire whether he was ill or not.

The partiality of President Lopez in favor of the accused, Valentin Trono, is
explained at once if it be taken into account that on being questioned during
the trial what relationship he had with Valentin he replied that he refused to
testify as to family secrets.

The very doctor, Andre’s Icasiano, who examined Benito Perez, notwithstanding
his manifest, clear, and evident tendency to favor the accused, was forced to
certify that there appeared on the upper part of the left iliac region near the
edge of the innominate bone two bruises caused by an instrument causing a
contusion, one of the size of a half dollar and the other the size of a 20-cent
piece.

The foregoing details show likewise the seriousness of the wounds of Benito
Perez. They broke him down to such an extent that he was unable to again stand
up from the moment he received the blows until the moment of his death. He was
unable to reach the municipal building without the support of the policeman
Jose, neither was he able to walk to his home, but was conveyed in a banca. His condition was so serious when he arrived at the latter place that his
mother, Candelaria de los Santos, justly alarmed, went without loss of time to
file an information before the justice of the peace against the authors of the
crime for attempted homicide. The physician, Icasiano, who examined Benito by
order of the justice, called upon him twice on the same night with an interval
of two hours only, which shows that he had fully realized the serious condition
of his patient. The latter in the meantime was unable to take any food. He could
only urinate a few drops of blood and felt continuous and sharp pains in the
abdomen, which he attributed to the blows and ill treatment to which he had been
subjected. He felt that he was dying; he so advised his family, and a few hours
later the crisis came and he passed away. All this is proven by the combined
testimony of the witnesses already mentioned, Candelaria and Juliana de los
Santos, Estanislao and Raymunda Perez and Policarpo Guevara, and Felipe
Bautista.

The defense contends that the death of Benito Perez was not due to the wounds
inflicted, which were not serious, but to hepatic colic brought on by
hypertrophic cirrhosis, from which the deceased had been suffering for a long
time, basing such allegation on the certificate and testimony of the physician,
Don Andres Icasiano, wherein such a statement is made.

We can not give any credit to the testimony of this physician because the
facts which would serve as a foundation to his conclusion are manifestly
inexact.

In the first place, in his certificate on folio 18 it is stated that the body
of the deceased only showed two small bruises on the superior part of the left
iliac region. The witness Esteban Perez testified that the deceased had bruises
and swellings on the superior part of the left hand, on the neck, on the ribs,
and on the abdomen; Raymunda Perez affirms having seen bruises on the abdomen on
both sides, on the left arm, and on the left side of the neck; and Candelaria de
los Santos likewise saw them on the upper part of the left hand and on the left
side of the neck and on the ribs. In the second place, the physician affirms
that the deceased devoted himself on the night of the occurrence to his
customary libations. Nothing is shown in the case to corroborate this alleged
habit, and especially nobody testified to having seen the deceased drunk on the
night of the occurrence.

In the third place it is stated in said certificate of the physician that the
deceased, after the blows the effects whereof are being inquired into went on
foot to the town from a distant barrio, and vice versa. This is manifestly
untrue, because the proof in this case shows that from the place where the
deceased was illtreated he was compelled to walk, being supported by a policeman
until he reached the town, and in order to take him from the town to his home it
was necessary to use a boat.

These last statements are so unjustified that the physician, Icasiano, when
testifying, withdrew them during the trial. Why, then, did he set them forth in
the certificate which appears on folio 18?

There is nothing in the case to show that the deceased had ever suffered from
hypertrophic cirrhosis. The ailment which the deceased had at the time referred
to by the physician, Icasiano, was cholera, according to the mother-of the
deceased, Candelaria de los Santos, who testified, besides, referring to the
time to which this case refers, that her son was of a robust constitution and
suffered no ailments whatever.

There are, besides, the following facts to be taken into consideration: After
the physician, Icasiano, had examined the deceased, and while the latter was
still alive, he told Raymunda Perez that the deceased was suffering from blows
with a rifle.

When the death had taken place, the family of the deceased repeatedly
requested the physician, Icasiano, to examine the body, which the latter flatly
refused to do, and warned them, on the other hand, to bury him quickly, under
the pretext that he had died of cholera.

It likewise appears from the testimony
of Raymunda Perez that said physician is an intimate friend of the accused,
Maximo Angeles.

Expert testimony no doubt constitutes evidence worthy of meriting
consideration, although not exclusive, on questions of a professional character.
The courts of justice, however, are not bound to submit their findings
necessarily to such testimony; they are free to weigh them, and they can give or
refuse to give them any value as proof, or they can even counterbalance such
evidence with the other elements of conviction which may have been adduced
during the trial. In the present case there are to be found sufficient data
which show in a conclusive manner the seriousness of the wounds inflicted upon
the deceased, which from the very first moment prevented him from keeping on his
feet, and caused him continuous and sharp pains in the abdomen and retention of
the urine—symptoms which constantly showed themselves until death came—which in
the absence of satisfactory proof to the contrary may be attributed to these
causes, which undoubtedly were sufficient in themselves to bring about the death
of the deceased.

The guilt of the accused is fully established in this case. They arrested the
deceased and took him out of his house. They took him to a place called
Sapang-Angelo, and they likewise committed the act of which they are
charged. Nevertheless their participation in the execution thereof was not equal.
Maximo Angeles and Valentin Trono’s participation was evidently direct and
immediate, because they ill treated and assaulted the deceased, as appears from
the testimony of Policarpo Guevara and Pedro Santos, as stated by the deceased
himself to his mother (Candelaria de los Santos) and Juliana de los Santos.

With regard to Maximo Angeles, there likewise exists the testimony of Felipe
Bautista, who says that this defendant illtreated and struck the deceased.
Angeles and Trono are therefore to be considered as the authors by direct
participation of the death of Benito Perez.

As to the other defendant, Timoteo Natividad, his cooperation was in the
nature of protection and aid, for even if it is true that he accompanied his
codefendants and was likewise present with them in the place where the crime was
committed, it does not appear, nevertheless, that he took any direct part in the
ill treatment of the deceased; and for this reason he should be considered only
as an accomplice of the two first named.

There is to be taken into account the aggravating circumstance of committing
the deed at night and abuse of superiority, which should be compensated with the
mitigating circumstance of the defendants not having the intention of causing an
evil so great as that which was actually produced, for an examination of the
record fully convinces us that when the former illtreated and struck Benito
Perez they did not have in mind the deliberate intent of depriving him of his
life, but only that of forcing him by such means to return the revolver which
they claimed had been stolen.

We therefore reverse the judgment appealed from and sentence the defendants
Maximo Angeles and Valentin Trono to the penalty of fourteen years eight months
and one day of reclusion temporal, and Timoteo Natividad to the penalty of eight
years and one day of prision mayor, and all three to the payment of an indemnity
consisting of 500 pesos, Philippine currency, to the heirs of the deceased, and
to the payment of the costs in this instance.

Arellano, C.J., Torres, Cooper, McDonough, and Johnson,
JJ., concur.

---

WILLARD, J.:

Believing that the defendant Timoteo Natividad should be condemned as a
coprincipal, I do not agree with the penalty imposed upon said
defendant.