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.

Hut 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. Tile 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 bloios 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.