People v.

Divina
G.R. No. 93808-09 – April 7, 1993
Second Division | J. Campos, Jr.

Digest Author: Vito

Topic: Entries in Official Records (Rule 130, Sec. 46)

Case Summary: The RTC convicted Belarmino Divina and Mecrito Baga for murder and frustrated murder for
the death of Concepcion Baillo and the gunshot wounds sustained by Jaime Baillo. Upon appeal, Divina
contended that the police blotter stated the shooting incident happened at around 7:40 o'clock in the evening of
June 17, 1988 and not 6:30 o'clock as claimed by the prosecution witnesses. It was, therefore, not possible for
the victim Jaime Baillo to have seen the accused without the aid of a lighted torch.

Issue: Whether or not the entries in the police blotter may be used as evidence in favor of Divina – NO
The Court did not agree. It is undisputed that the alleged time of the commission of the crime, i.e., 7:40 in the
evening of June 17, 1988, was supplied only by the parish priest Fr. Badoy who was neither present when the
shooting incident happened nor presented as a witness during the trial. The information supplied is therefore
hearsay and does not have any probative value.

Doctrines/Laws Involved: A police blotter is a book which records criminal incidents reported to the
police. Entries in official records, as in this case of a police blotter, are only prima facie evidence of the
facts therein stated. They are not conclusive.

FACTS:

1. The RTC convicted Belarmino Divina and Mecrito Baga for murder and frustrated murder for the death
of Concepcion Baillo and the gunshot wounds sustained by Jaime Baillo.
2. Prosecution’s Version:
a. Ambrocio Baillo, his son Jaime Baillo and his wife Concepcion Baillo were walking home from
the flea market in the evening around 6:30 p.m.
b. Just after crossing the Maayong-tubig river and while walking one behind the other (Ambrocio,
Jaime then Concepcion) along the trail, suddenly and without any warning, they were shot from
behind.
c. Concepcion was mortally wounded and fell, while Jaime also fell down having been hit at the
back and at the left hip. Ambrocio, unhurt, instructed Jaime to hide and then ran directly to their
house.
d. Ambrocio told Rogelio, his younger son, to go and see his brother and mother while Ambrocio
reported the incident to the police and to the parish priest Fr. Badoy.
e. While hiding, Jaime recognized their neighbors, the accused, who approached his mother’s
lifeless body and said in dialect, “Only the gun can silence those witnesses against the Divinas.”
He narrated the same to Rogelio.
f. Around 10:00 p.m., Ambrocio arrived with Fr. Badoy, a teacher and the policemen. They then
loaded the dead body of Concepcion on the truck and brought her to their house while Jaime was
brought to the provincial hospital for treatment.
 3. Accused Divina denied and contended that on the same day, he ate lunch, went to the flea market,
played volleyball, at bread, drank tuba in his in-law’s house and watched TV for the rest of the night.
4. Accused Baga contended that he plowed the Divina’s fields until afternoon of the same day, prayer the
Holy Rosary and ate supper with the Divina family, and then left with his mother.
5. Before this Court, the accused appeals their conviction for various contentions.

ISSUES + HELD/RATIO:
1. Whether or not the entries in the police blotter may be used as evidence in favor of Divina – NO
a. Divina’s contention: As stated in the police blotter, the shooting incident happened at around
7:40 o'clock in the evening of June 17, 1988 and not 6:30 o'clock as claimed by the prosecution
witnesses. It was, therefore, not possible for the victim Jaime Baillo to have seen the accused
without the aid of a lighted torch.
b. We do not agree. A police blotter is a book which records criminal incidents reported to the
police. Entries in official records, as in this case of a police blotter, are only prima facie
evidence of the facts therein stated. They are not conclusive. It is undisputed that the alleged
time of the commission of the crime, i.e., 7:40 in the evening of June 17, 1988, was supplied
only by the parish priest Fr. Badoy who was neither present when the shooting incident happened
nor presented as a witness during the trial. The information supplied is therefore hearsay and
does not have any probative value.

OTHER ISSUES
2. Whether or not Jaime’s admission to Dr. Calumpang in the hospital that he was shot by an unknown
assailant can be used as evidence in favor of the accused – NO
a. The response of the doctor to the question: "Did he tell you who shot him?" was "No". The
phrase "by an unknown assailant" was merely volunteered by the doctor which can be taken to
mean that the assailant was unknown to her but not necessarily unknown to the victim,
Jaime Baillo.
b. The succeeding question propounded by the defense counsel, to wit "That is very clear to you
that he was shot by an unknown assailant?" calls for a statement of an opinion and not a
statement of fact.
c. It is the duty of the defense counsel to propound questions that will not result in two or more
interpretations as what happened in this case. The resulting inconsistencies were the product of
the kind of questions propounded by defense counsel.
3. Whether or not Parao’s testimony in another criminal cases stating that Jaime allegedly told him that it
was Guillermo and Douglas Divina, accused’s brothers, who shot him and his money is admissible –
NO
a. Feliciano Parao was not presented as witness during the trial of this case.
b. His testimony has no probative value. The trial court was correct in rejecting said statements.
4. Whether or not the witnesses should be faulted for reporting the identities of the accused only after one
month and nine days have elapsed – NO
a. The initial reluctance of witnesses to volunteer information about a criminal case and their
unwillingness to be involved in criminal investigations due to fear of reprisal is common and has
been judicially declared not to affect credibility.
 b. Divina has been the OIC Barangay Captain of Anhawan since 1986 up to May, 1988. Although
the incident happened after his term, having held said position, he has a strong influence in said
place. It was natural for the victim to fear for his life as explained by him.
c. Although there is a natural tendency to seek the ends of justice for the treacherous killing of a
dearly departed, mourning and rites for the dead take priority as dictated by our culture.
d. Moreover, Jaime Baillo had to recover both physically and emotionally after his discharge from
the hospital; hence, the delay in the filing of the complaint was understandable.
5. Whether or not the defense of alibi and denial should be sustained – NO (for Divina), YES (for Baga)
a. The trial court was correct in convicting accused Belarmino Divina on the strength of the
testimony of the lone eyewitness Jaime Baillo.
b. However, in the case of the accused Mecrito Baga, we find the evidence of the prosecution not
sufficient to establish his guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
6. Whether or not conspiracy was established – NO
a. Nowhere in the trial court's decision was there any mention of any act of the accused that may be
construed as an overt act in the furtherance of conspiracy.
b. The mere presence of accused Mecrito Baga does not prove his participation in the killing.

DISPOSITIVE: WHEREFORE, premises considered, judgment is hereby rendered ACQUITTING accused

MECRITO BAGA of the crime of Murder in Criminal Case No. 8342 and of Frustrated Murder in Criminal
Case No. 8362 for failure of the prosecution to prove his guilt beyond reasonable doubt. The convictions of
accused BELARMINO DIVINA in Criminal Cases Nos. 8342 and 8362 are AFFIRMED with the modification
that he be ordered to indemnify the heirs of the victim Concepcion Baillo in the amount of P50,000.00 in
consonance with prevailing jurisprudence. The petition for certiorari filed by accused BELARMINO DIVINA
is DISMISSED for lack of merit.