Case Digest (G.R. No. 157106)
Facts:
Romulo Tindoy v. People of the Philippines, G.R. No. 157106, September 03, 2008, First Division, Leonardo‑De Castro, J., writing for the Court. Petitioner Romulo Tindoy (a police officer) appealed the Court of Appeals' April 25, 2002 Decision (and its February 6, 2003 Resolution denying reconsideration) that affirmed the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Pasig City, Branch 167 decision convicting him of homicide under Article 249 of the Revised Penal Code.On August 29, 1993 petitioner, together with police colleagues PO1 Manuel Fernandez and PO3 Ariel Sanchez, responded to a domestic disturbance at the home of Dominador and Elsie Viernes in Taguig. The couple was taken to the police substation and thereafter to Rizal Medical Center for treatment; Dominador was detained overnight and released the following afternoon. On August 31 he was taken to Fort Bonifacio Hospital and then to Makati Medical Center for CT scan; he died on September 2, 1993. An autopsy by Dr. Florante Baltazar recorded multiple head injuries and concluded cause of death was traumatic head injury.
At trial the prosecution presented as witnesses Dominador’s mother Consolacion Viernes, Elsie (the victim’s common‑law wife and the prosecution’s material eyewitness), and three physicians (Drs. Raul Palma, Nestor Bautista and Florante Baltazar). Elsie testified that the three policemen — including petitioner — repeatedly struck Dominador’s head while at the police station, producing the injuries she saw. The physicians corroborated multiple blows and skull fractures consistent with blunt force trauma.
Petitioner and co‑accused claimed they did not assault Dominador and instead maintained Elsie struck her husband with a piece of 2x2 wood during their quarrel. The defense offered petitioner’s testimony, PO3 Sanchez’s testimony, Dr. Eugenio Alonzo (who treated the couple at Rizal Medical Center), and several lay witnesses; no witness testified to actually seeing Elsie strike Dominador with the wood.
On July 31, 1998 the RTC convicted petitioner and his co‑accused of homicide and sentenced each to an indeterminate term under Article 249, with indemnity awarded to the offended party. The three officers appealed to the Court of Appeals (CA-G.R. CR No. 22574). During the appeal two co‑accused absconded and, under Section 8, paragraph 2, Rule 124 of the Rules of Criminal Procedure, were stripped of their right to appeal; petitioner continued the appeal alone. On April 25, 2002 the CA affirmed th...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Under Rule 45, may the Supreme Court review and overturn the factual findings of the trial court as affirmed by the Court of Appeals?
- Was the conviction of petitioner for homicide supported by the evidence, or should the Court have found Elsie to be ...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)