Evidence Digest: THE UNITED STATES, vs.VALENTIN TRONO, ET AL. (1904)

Topic: Opinion Rule (Rule 130, Sections 48-50)

THE UNITED STATES, vs.VALENTIN TRONO, ET AL.

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

Facts:

The defendants, charged with the murder of Benito Perez, were convicted by the trial court of the offense of lesiones menos graves. It appears that Benito Perez was arrested by police officers who allegedly illtreated Benito, causing the latter's death.

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.

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 sufferred no ailments whatever.

The medical certificate stated that the body of the deceased only showed two small bruises while three witnesses 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; The physician also affirmed that the deceased devoted himself on the night of the occurrence to his customary libations. Nothing is shown in the case to corroborate this illegal habit, and especially nobody testified to having seen the deceased drunk on the night of the occurrence. 

Also, 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.

Issue:

Is the expert testimony of the physician admissible in evidence?

Held:

NO. The  physician's testimony cannot be given credit because the facts which would serve as a foundation to his conclusion are manifestly inexact. 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.

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 weight 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.