JOSE RODRIGUEZ AND ROSALINO BALANTA, PETITIONERS, VS. SANDIGANBAYAN AND THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, RESPONDENTS.

Jose Rodriguez and Rosalino Balanta, police officers of Sto. Domingo,
Albay – having allegedly beaten up a certain Jose Bandagoza on or about
February 23, 1980 thus causing his death twelve (12) days later – were indicted
for homicide before the Sandiganbayan. They were, after due proceedings, convicted as charged and, the
mitigating circumstances of voluntary surrender and lack of intent to commit so
grave a wrong being appreciated in their favor, each sentenced to the
indeterminate sentence of two (2) years, four (4) months and one (1) day of prision
correccional as minimum, to eight (8) years and one (1) day of prision
mayor as maximum. They were also
commanded to indemnify the heirs of the deceased jointly and severally in the
amount of P12,000.00. A review and
reversal of that judgment of conviction is now sought by both of them in this
Court, on appeal by certiorari seasonably taken.

The Sandiganbayan found the facts hereunder briefly narrated, to
have been established by proof beyond reasonable doubt.

At about 8 o’clock in the evening of February 23, 1980, Francisco
Añonuevo was attending a party at the town plaza in front of the Municipal Hall
of Sto. Domingo. While there, he saw
three persons pass by. One was walking
ahead, followed by two others who were in police uniform. He recognized the person in front as Jose
Bandagoza and the two behind, as herein petitioners, police officers Balanta
and Rodriguez. As they were walking,
the policemen kept on kicking Bandagoza. On reaching the flag pole in front of the municipal building, Bandagoza
fell. Thereupon, Balanta and Rodriguez
dragged the fallen man towards the municipal building. Curiosity prompted Añonuevo to proceed
towards the rear of that building to see what would happen. Through a window, he saw Balanta and
Rodriguez take turns in striking Bandagoza with their fists in the face, head
and abdomen. After absorbing the pair’s
fist blows continuously for about five minutes, Bandagoza fell to the concrete
floor, unconscious. The two policemen
then lifted Bandagoza by his legs and arms, and threw him into a cell. After witnessing the incident, Añonuevo went
home. Out of fear, however, he kept the
incident to himself.1

Jose Bandagoza spent the night in the cell. He was released in the early morning of
February 24, 1980. Some friends brought
him to the house of his sister, Delia, at about 3 o’clock a.m. Jose had immediately gone to bed,
complaining of bodily pains particularly in the back of the neck. Delia noticed that he could hardly
move. She asked him what had
happened. He replied that he had been
boxed by policemen.2
In the ensuing days, Jose Bandagoza’s condition deteriorated. On March 2, 1980, his sister brought him to
Dr. David Leones for treatment. Jose’s
condition did not improve however; instead it turned from bad to worse. He eventually lapsed into a coma. He was in that state when on March 5, 1980,
Delia brought him to the Provincial Hospital of Albay. But by then, he was beyond help. He expired within 12 hours from the time he
was admitted to the hospital. Dr.
Orlando Braga, the attending physician, issued a death certificate indicating
the cause of death as “meningitis.”3

On March 10, 1980, Delia Bandagoza wrote a letter to the
Agent-in-Charge of the National Bureau of Investigation at Legaspi City,
requesting investigation of her brother’s death and the exhumation of his body
in order to determine more accurately the cause of his death.4

Exhumation took place on March 10, 1980 and Dr. Rolando G. Oba,
medico-legal officer of the National Bureau of Investigation, conducted an autopsy
on the cadaver. As set forth in the
exhumation report subsequently drawn up by Dr. Oba,5 the deceased had hematoma in
different parts of his body especially in the head. Inside his skull was found blackish material which could be
nothing else but clotted blood, indicative of the occurrence of severe
intracranial hemorrhage during the lifetime of the deceased. Dr. Oba opined that the hematoma and the
hemorrhage were caused by the infliction on the areas affected of traumatic
force such as a fist blow or a kick. The report closed with the statement that death was caused by
“hemorrhage, severe, intracranial, traumatic.”1

Rodriguez and Balanta denied having inflicted any injury on the
deceased. They gave a different version
of the incident.

According to them, on February 23, 1980, at around ten o’clock in
the evening, they were in their place of assignment — the area of the market
place. They heard a loud voice coming
from the market. Recognizing the voice
as Bandagoza’s, they went to look for him and shortly found him lying on the
concrete floor of the market, drunk. They would have left him there, undisturbed; but they were requested by
Barangay Captain Severino Rodriguez to bring Bandagoza to the municipal jail so
he could sleep off his intoxication. They thus helped Bandagoza to his feet and led him to the municipal
building. As they were walking behind
Bandagoza, the latter tripped and fell on the pavement with his hand under his
right cheek. Again they helped
Bandagoza to his feet. Then Balanta led
him to the municipal hall while Rodriguez chose to stay behind at the flag
pole. After turning Bandagoza over to
the desk officer, Balanta immediately left the building.2

The desk officer, the jailer, and a certain Amado Gregorio, a
sanitary inspector, took the witness stand to corroborate this story.

In the appeal at bar, Balanta and Rodriguez would have this Court
conclude that Bandagoza died of natural causes, that his death resulted from a
disease. This claim they rested on the
prosecution’s Exhibit A, the death certificate executed by Dr. Braga, supra,
stating the cause of death as “meningitis,”3 and the testimony of Dr. Braga
himself to the effect that the meningitis was bacterial in origin. They also presented the testimony of Dr.
David Leones who identified Bandagoza’s ailment, as of March 2, 1980, as
“frontal sinusitis” and, as of March 5, 1980, when the victim was already
comatose as “typhus fever.”

The petitioners also assail the credibility of the eyewitness
account of Francisco Añonuevo. According to them, Añonuevo is not only related to the deceased, his
wife being an aunt of the deceased, but also had an axe to grind against both
policemen. Añonuevo, they say, had been
admonished by Balanta sometime before the incident for his illegal activities
as “jueteng” collector, an incident that had engendered a mistaken notion
on Añonuevo’s part that Balanta had a hand in the subsequent filing of a
criminal case against him for illegal possession of “jueteng”
paraphernalia.4
As regards Rodriguez, Añonuevo’s resentment supposedly resulted from his
assumption that Rodriguez had refused his earnest request that he (Rodriguez)
talk to Balanta to drop the accusation for illegal possession of gambling
paraphernalia.5
Añonuevo’s bias, the petitioners claim, is obvious from the fact that he gave
his story much too late, having narrated it for the first time only when the
incident was already under investigation. Such a story, it is contended, had been manufactured to give vent to a
hidden grudge.

The petitioners, in fine, denounce as gravely erroneous, and pray
for reversal, of the Sandiganbayan’s conclusion that the evidence adequately
demonstrates that they had inflicted on the person of the deceased severe
physical maltreatment, and the latter’s death had ensued as the direct result
thereof. The issue they raise, however,
is clearly one of fact. Hence, on this
basis alone, the petition should be given short shrift. It is axiomatic that the appellate
jurisdiction of the Supreme Court over decisions and final orders of the
Sandiganbayan is limited only to questions of law;1 it
does not review the factual findings of the Sandiganbayan which are, as a rule,
conclusive upon it.2

Nonetheless, a careful review of the record was undertaken to see
if anything of weight had been overlooked by the Sandiganbayan in the
evaluation of the evidence which would justify a modification of its
decision. The review only exposed more
clearly the petitioners’ culpability. The proofs positively point to them as the persons responsible for the
death of Jose Bandagoza: they had
sadistically pummeled the deceased with kicks and fist blows, and the multiple
injuries thus suffered by the latter had caused in his cranium bleeding so severe
that it had resulted in his death a few days thereafter.

The petitioners’ arguments aimed at discrediting the testimony of
Añonuevo are far from persuasive. It is
true that the witness is an uncle of sorts (by affinity) of the deceased; but
settled is the rule that a witness’ relation to the victim of a crime does not,
by itself, impair his credibility.3 It is also true that there was some
delay in Añonuevo’s revelation of the incident; he made it known only a month
later, or on March 24, 1980 when he gave a statement to the NBI. The delay cannot reduce his credibility not
only because slight but also because sufficiently explained. The witness feared for his safety. He felt constrained to break his silence
only when one Danilo Bandoquillo, who had also witnessed the incident, informed
Jose’s sister Delia that he (Añonuevo) was present when it happened.4
The Court, in many instances, has acknowledged the fact that people are
naturally reluctant to get involved in criminal prosecutions, and has
consequently refused to regard a witness’ delay in reporting a crime as a
necessarily negative factor in the evaluation of his testimony.5
This acknowledged reluctance becomes all the more understandable in this
particular case, where the culprits were policemen wielding no small authority
and influence in the community.

No reason is disclosed by the record to doubt Añonuevo’s
testimony. Even the cause for
resentment attributed to him — having been implicated by Balanta in a charge
of illegal possession of gambling paraphernalia — cannot suffice to downgrade
his testimony. For one thing, the cited
incident does not appear to be of such significance as to impel a simple-minded
farmer like Añonuevo to weave a tale of lies against police officers. For another, except for the petitioners’
naked assertion, no proof was introduced to prove that the incident in truth
had taken place.

Indeed, Añonuevo’s testimonial credit is enhanced by its
concordance with the findings in the exhumation report of the NBI. The conclusion in that report of the
application of traumatic force on the person of the deceased by such blunt
objects as clenched fists or shod feet is entirely consistent with Añonuevo’s
declaration that Balanta and Rodriguez had rained kicks and fist blows on the
body of the deceased with such force as to send the victim to the concrete
floor, unconscious.

Petitioners would have this Court accord more weight to the
testimonies of Doctors Leones and Braga, in relation to that of Dr. Oba. The record precludes this. The record contains the frank avowals of
Doctors Braga and Leones that they did not examine the deceased thoroughly and
their opinions had been based only on the symptoms manifested by the
patient. Dr. Braga averred that his
examination was confined to the exposed or unclothed parts of the victim’s
body.1
Dr. Leones, in his turn, stated that his diagnosis on March 2, 1980 of “frontal
sinusitis” was only “tentative,” rendered after examining the victim
externally; and that when he saw the patient again on March 5, 1980, he thought
his ailment was “typhus fever” because of said patient’s comatose state
and other symptoms manifested.2 His diagnosis is, therefore, as he
candidly concedes, tentative, conjectural. On the other hand, the NBI report of the autopsy performed after
exhumation merits the credence conceded to it by the Sandiganbayan. It was executed and submitted in the regular
performance of official duty by a qualified medico-legal expert. It was the result of a thorough and
scientific examination of the body of the victim. It was done without any disclosed or intimated motive to falsify,
or favor a particular party.

In any case, Dr. Braga has testified that meningitis is not
entirely inconsistent with intra-cranial hemorrhage resulting from physical
blows by a blunt instrument. He deposed
that an intra-cranial hemorrhage, if sufficiently severe, may develop into
meningitis and thus manifest some of its symptoms, i.e., as regards the
physiological reflexes.3

The foregoing considerations lead back to the rule earlier
adverted to, that the Supreme Court will not interfere with the conclusions of
fact of the trial court absent any circumstance of weight which the latter has
overlooked or misinterpreted. Against
the positive evidence showing their culpability, petitioners’ denials, and Rodriguez’
defense of alibi as well, must fail. The entirety of the evidence makes possible no adjudgment except that of
their culpability in the death of Jose Bandagoza. Petitioners are answerable for the direct and natural
consequences of their act.4

WHEREFORE, the petition for review on certiorari is
DENIED, and the challenged judgment of conviction is AFFIRMED, with the
modification that the indemnity solidarily payable by the petitioners to the
heirs of the victim is increased to P30,000.00.

SO ORDERED.

Fernan, C.J., Melencio-Herrera, Gutierrez, Jr., Paras,
Feliciano, Gancayco, Padilla, Sarmiento, Bidin, Cortes, Griño-Aquino,
Medialdea, and Regalado, JJ., concur.

Cruz, J., see separate
concurrence.

1
Añonuevo, tsn, Dec. 7,1981, pp. 6–14.

2
Bandagoza, tsn, Dec. 7,1981, pp. 34-35.

3
Exh. A, Bandagoza, tsn, Dec. 7,1981, pp. 40-41, Dr. Braga, tsn, March 16,1982,
p. 8.

4
Exhibit B.

5
Exhibit C.

1
Dr. Oba, tsn, March 15, 1982, pp, 9-18.

2
Balanta, TSN, July 22, 1982, pp. 54-61.

3
Exhibit 1.

4
Exh. 4, Crim. Case No. 6774, Municipal
Court of Tabaco, Albay.

5 Balanta,
TSN, July 22, 1982, pp. 63-68; Rodriguez, TSN, July 22, 1982, pp. 87-88.

1 Sec. 7, PD
1606 as amended in relation to Sec. 2, Rule 45 of the Rules of Court.

2 Gabison v.
Sandiganbayan; G.R. No. 53001-56, June 18, 1987, 151 SCRA 61.

3 People v.
Paras, G.R. Nos. 61773, Jan. 31, 1987, 147 SCRA 594; People v. Bautista,
G.R. No. 69123, Jan. 30, 1987, 147 SCRA 500; Peo. v. Seguerra, G.r. No.
58574, Oct. 12, 1987, 154 SCRA 656

4 Añonuevo,
TSN, Dec. 7, 1981, pp. 19-20;22.

5 People v.
Estocada, G.R. No. L-31024, Feb. 28, 1977, 75 SCRA 295; People v.
Ferrera, G.R. No. 66965, June 18, 1987, 151 SCRA 113; People v.
Punzalan, G.R. No. 54562, Aug. 6, 1987. 153 SCRA 1; People v. Andres, G. R. No. 75355, Oct. 29, 1987, 155
SCRA 290.

1 Dr. Braga, TSN, March 16, 1982, p. 14.

2 Dr. Leones, TSN, Oct. 27,1982, pp. 10-16.

3 TSN, Dr. Oba, March 16,1982, pp. 10-11

4 See Art. 4, Revised Penal Code.

6 pt
6 pt
0
3