SECOND DIVISION
[G.R. No. 123186.
July 9, 1998]
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee,
vs. ERIC MENDOZA and ANGELITO BALAGTAS, accused, ERIC MENDOZA, accused-appellant.
D E C I S I O N
PUNO, J.:
On May 18, 1995,
the Regional Trial Court of Bulacan, 3rd Judicial Region, Branch 14, Malolos,
found[1] the two accused Eric Mendoza and
Angelito Balagtas guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the special complex crime
of robbery with rape in Criminal Case No. 1941-M-91. They were meted out a prison term of Reclusion Perpetua
and ordered to indemnify the victim, Andrelita Sto. Domingo, the amount of P12,000
as actual damages and P100,000.00 as moral damages, plus costs. From this decision,[2] only Eric Mendoza appealed.[3] Mendoza was indicted under the
following Information:[4]
"The undersigned
Assistant Provincial Prosecutor accuses Eric Mendoza and Angelito Balagtas of
the crime of robbery with rape, penalized under the provisions of Art. 294,
paragraph 2 of the Revised Penal Code, committed as follows:
"That on or about the
23rd day of August, 1991, in the municipality of Sta. Maria, province of
Bulacan, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the
above-named accused, with a knife, conspiring, confederating together and
mutually helping each other, did then and there wilfully, unlawfully and
feloniously, with intent of [sic] gain and by means of violence, threats and
intimidation enter the house of one Andrelita Sto. Domingo and once inside,
take, rob and carry away with them the following, to wit:
"1. cash
amounting to - - - - - - P 2,000.00
2.
one (1) necklace - - - - -
- 2,000.00
3.
one (1) set of earring - -
- 2,000.00
4.
one (1) ring - - - - - - -
- - 1,500.00
5.
one (1) wrist watch - - - - -
5,000.00
with the
total value of P12,500.00, belonging to the said Andrelita Sto. Domingo,
to the damage and prejudice of the latter in the total amount of P12,500.00
and that simultaneously or during the commission of robbery, the above named
accused Angelito Balagtas by means of violence, threats and intimidation have
carnal knowledge of the said Andrelita Sto. Domingo against her will and by
means of force.
"That in the
commission of this crime the aggravating circumstances were present, to
wit: (1) nocturnity, (2) superior
strength and (3) with a [sic] use of a
knife.
"Contrary to
law."
At the trial,
the prosecution presented private complainant Andrelita Sto. Domingo as its
principal witness. She testified as follows:
In the evening
of August 22, 1991, private complainant's husband went to San Jose del Monte,
Bulacan to haul chicken. She retired to
their bedroom. She was joined by her
three (3) children, while their maid went down to the basement to sleep.[5] The bedroom is on the elevated
portion of their bungalow-type house in Tumana, Sta. Maria, Bulacan, while
another room is located in the basement.[6] The toilet and bath in the bedroom
had a grill-less window with glass jalousies that open to the roof of the terrace.[7] The lights in the bedroom and the
bathroom were on[8] at the time that she and her
children fell asleep that evening.
Private
complainant woke up when she felt her thighs being rubbed. Thereupon, she saw two (2) men in black
jackets with their faces covered with handkerchiefs.[9] She described one of them as medium
built and the other as a small man.
The medium-built man poked a 6-inch knife at her neck and ordered her to
open the vault inside the room.[10] The two men took the cash in the
vault amounting to P2,000.00 and jewelry worth P12,000.00.[11]
Upon orders of
the medium-built man, the small man untied the curtain band and handed the same
to him. While undoing the curtain, the
handkerchief loosened, revealing the small man's face to be that of Eric Mendoza.[12] Private complainant recognized him
because he used to work in her uncle's steel factory in Tumana, Sta. Maria,
Bulacan.[13] After the medium-built man had tied
her hands with the curtain band and gagged her with a torn t-shirt, the small
man helped him carry private complainant to the bathroom. It was then that she noticed the missing
jalousie blades on the window.[14]
The medium-built
man sent the small man out of the bathroom, through the window, to stand guard
on the terrace roof.[15] Alone with private complainant
inside the bathroom, the medium-built man removed the handkerchief covering his
face, raised her t-shirt and began sucking her breast. While keeping the knife pointed at her neck,
he forcibly removed her jogging pants and underwear, laid her on the bathroom
floor, and sexually abused her for about two minutes.[16] In the meantime, private
complainant could see the small man peeping through the window and watching her
being raped.[17]
After satisfying
his lust, the medium-built man threatened to kill her and her family if she
would tell anyone about what had happened.
He went out through the bathroom window and joined the small man on the
terrace roof.[18]
In the early
morning of August 23, 1991, private complainant's husband arrived and learned
of the incident from her. At about
10:00 o'clock that morning, they reported the crime to Mr. Rico Jude Sto.
Domingo, the Barangay Chairman of Tumana, Sta. Maria, Bulacan.[19] On August 25, 1991, they also
informed the Sta. Maria Police of the incident, but they deliberately left out
the details regarding the rape to avoid public embarrassment.[20]
They reconsidered later their decision to keep the rape a secret. On August 27, 1991, they went to the office
of the National Bureau of Investigation (NBI) where private complainant was
examined by Dr. Floresto Arizala, Jr., a medico-legal officer.[21] On August 31, 1991, they returned
to the Sta. Maria Police Station and reported the rape.[22]
Other
prosecution witnesses included Dr. Arisala, Jr., the NBI medico-legal officer;
Mr. Rico Jude Sto. Domingo, the Barangay Chairman; and Mr. Rolando de Jesus, an
uncle and neighbor of private complainant.
On the witness
stand, Dr. Arisala, Jr. confirmed his signature on Living Case Report No.
MG-91-863. He stated that there was no
injury on private complainant's genital area. He made no conclusion, however,
as to whether or not she was raped, since in cases like hers where the hymen
has been thinned by several completed pregnancies, sexual intercourse no longer
causes any injury or laceration to the hymen.[23]
Mr. Rico Jude
Sto. Domingo has known Mendoza for six (6) years. He testified that on August 23, 1991, private complainant and her
husband went to his house to report the robbery and rape incident. He made the corresponding entry in the
Barangay Blotter.[24] On August 25, 1991, Mendoza's
father presented his son to Mr. Sto. Domingo, who, thereupon, brought them to
private complainant's house. There, a
confrontation ensued. Mendoza eventually admitted to having pointed the private
complainant's house to Balagtas as a possible object of robbery.[25] He said that Balagtas was his uncle
and identified him as the rapist.[26] After the confession, Mr. Sto.
Domingo turned Mendoza over to the Sta. Maria police before whom he revealed
that Balagtas was from San Miguel, Bulacan.
The Sta. Maria police coordinated with the San Miguel police to arrest Balagtas.
Mr. Rolando de
Jesus testified that the house of private complainant, who happens to be his
niece, is only one hundred (100) meters away from their house. Their houses are on the side of a private
road. While negotiating this road on
his car in the evening of August 20, 1991, at about 8:00 o'clock, Mr. de Jesus
noticed two persons lingering at the back of private complainant's house. He recognized one of them to be Mendoza who
was seemingly showing to his companion the location of the windows on the
second floor of the house. Mendoza was
specifically pointing at the window without iron grills above the terrace roof.[27]
There were no
other witnesses for the defense except the accused themselves both of whom put
up similar claims of alibi.
Mendoza
testified that he was in their house in Tumana, Sta. Maria, Bulacan with his
grandparents and cousins, Totoy, Rodel, Buboy and Ana in the early morning of
August 23, 1991. He denied any
confrontation with private complainant at her house where he allegedly
confessed his complicity in the robbery incident. He claimed to have been brought by Mr. Sto. Domingo, the Barangay
Chairman, to the municipal building in
August, 1991 where he was detained in a cell, investigated and forced to admit
his guilt after having been mauled for about fifteen (15) minutes.
Balagtas
testified that in the early morning of August 23, 1991, he was in their house
in Pinambaran, San Miguel, Bulacan.[28] Less than a year after, he was
brought to the municipal building of Sta. Maria where he was, like
Mendoza, mauled and forced to make a confession.[29] He also denied that Mendoza was his
nephew.[30]
The trial court
paid no heed to the defenses of Mendoza and Balagtas. It gave full credence to the evidence of the prosecution which it
found to have established their guilt beyond reasonable doubt. The trial court ruled, viz:
"In view of the
foregoing evidence, the Court is morally convinced that the prosecution has
established beyond reasonable doubt the guilt of the accused. Although Eric Mendoza did not participate in
sexually abusing the victim, he and Angelito conspired and helped one another
commit the crime of Robbery with Rape.
The crime having been
committed before the enactment of R.A. 7659 restoring death penalty, the court
can only impose the penalty of Reclusion Perpetua.
WHEREFORE, the Court finds
the accused Eric Mendoza and Angelito Balagtas guilty beyond reasonable doubt
of the crime of Robbery with Rape. The Court imposes upon the accused the
penalty of Reclusion Perpetua.
To pay the offended party P12,000.00
actual damage and P100,000.00 moral damage with costs.
SO ORDERED."
The records show
that only Mendoza filed a notice of appeal.
As to Balagtas, therefore, the trial court judgment has become final and
executory.
Mendoza assigns
the following errors:
"I
"THE
COURT A QUO ERRED IN FINDING THAT CONSPIRACY EXISTED IN THE COMMISSION
OF THE CRIME OF ROBBERY WITH RAPE.
"II
"THE
COURT A QUO ERRED IN FINDING THAT THE GUILT OF THE ACCUSED-APPELLANT
ERIC MENDOZA HAS BEEN PROVEN BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT.
III
"THE
COURT A QUO GRAVELY ERRED IN NOT APPRECIATING THE PRIVILEGED MITIGATING
CIRCUMSTANCE OF MINORITY IN FAVOR OF THE ACCUSED-APPELLANT ERIC MENDOZA."[31]
This Court
affirms the conviction of Mendoza for the crime of robbery with rape.
First. We are in accord with the trial court's
evidentiary findings, largely based on private complainant's testimony,
that Mendoza participated as a
principal in robbing her of the cash and jewelries in their house vault. She was a veracious witness whose testimony
was forthright, consistent and credible.
In a long line of cases, we have held that if the testimony of the rape victim is accurate and credible,
a conviction for rape may issue upon the sole basis of the victim's
testimony because no decent and sensible woman will publicly admit being a rape victim and thus run the risk of
public contempt unless she is, in fact, a rape victim.[32] In the instant case, private
complainant's credibility can not be doubted, not only because her testimony is
corroborated by other prosecution witnesses, but also because she had
absolutely no motive to falsely implicate the accused.[33] A married woman with a husband and
three daughters would not publicly admit that she had been criminally abused
unless that was the truth.
Significantly,
too, the private complainant made her
statements to the Barangay Chairman and the Sta. Maria Police
immediately after the commission of the crime when she hardly had time or
opportunity to fabricate a falsehood.
Nonetheless,
Mendoza assails the testimonies of Rico Jude Sto. Domingo and Rolando de Jesus
as biased because they are relatives of private complainant. But mere
relationship to the victim is not a ground to exclude a witness or reject his
testimony, absent a showing of evil motive on his part to testify falsely
against the accused.[34] The defense, in this case, made no
such showing, hence, the testimonies of Sto. Domingo and de Jesus are worthy of
full faith and credit.[35] In fact, as relatives of the
victim, they are naturally interested in implicating only the real culprits,
for otherwise, the latter would thereby gain immunity.[36] While revenge is a normal reaction
in a person who has lost loved ones because of a crime, it does not follow that
the revenge would be directed aimlessly so as to include innocent persons.[37]
Second. We do not believe Mendoza's alibi. He insists that he was at home in the early
morning of August 23, 1991 with his grandparents and four (4) cousins. The defense, however, failed to put them on
the witness stand. Neither did they
execute any statement under oath to substantiate Mendoza's alibi. At any rate,
we have consistently ruled that where an accused's alibi can only be confirmed
by his relatives, his denial of culpability deserves scant consideration,
especially in the face of affirmative testimonies of credible prosecution
witnesses as to his presence in the crime scene.[38] For his alibi to be considered
favorably, Mendoza must prove not only that he was somewhere else when the
crime took place but also that it was physically impossible for him to have
been at the scene of the crime when it was committed.[39] By his own admission, Mendoza lives
in Tumana, Sta. Maria, Bulacan, or in the same area as the victim's
residence. It was easy for Mendoza
to negotiate the distance between his
house and the victim's house. Mendoza's
alibi cannot exculpate him.
Third. Mendoza claims that he was mauled into
confessing culpability for the robbery.
In the first place, there is no proof at all of the mauling incident to
support his charge. More importantly, independent of that confession, there is
evidence beyond reasonable doubt of his participation as co-conspirator in
committing the robbery. To repeat, the
victim positively and unequivocally identified him and her testimony has been
corroborated by the other prosecution witnesses.
Fourth. Mendoza underscores that the stolen items
were not recovered from him by the police.
It has never been the rule in this jurisdiction, however, that such a
fact can diminish the guilt of a robber whose complicity in the crime has been
established by proof beyond reasonable doubt.
The presumption that a person in whose custody are found stolen items,
is prima facie the robber or the thief,[40] does not translate into a converse
presumption that a person indicted for robbery or theft should be acquitted
when the authorities do not recover the stolen items from him. The production in court of the stolen
property is not an indispensable requisite to sustain conviction as long as
there is clear proof of the commission of the crime charged.[41]
Fifth. Mendoza claims that he has been charged and
convicted of a crime he did not commit, considering that he did not rape
Andrelita Sto. Domingo. If at all he were guilty of a crime, it was only of
robbery, not robbery with rape.
We disagree.
Robbery with
rape is a special complex crime punished under the second paragraph of Article
294 of the Revised Penal Code which reads:
"Art. 294. Robbery with violence against or
intimidation of persons--Penalties.--Any person guilty of robbery with the use
of violence against or intimidation of any person shall suffer:
"x x x x x x x
x x
"2. The penalty of reclusion temporal in
its medium period to reclusion perpetua, when the robbery shall have
been accompanied by rape or intentional mutilation, or if by reason or on
occasion of such robbery, any of the physical injuries penalized in subdivision
1 or article 263 shall have been inflicted:
Provided, however, That when the robbery accompanied with rape is
committed with the use of a deadly weapon or by two or more persons, the
penalty shall be reclusion perpetua to death.
"x
x x x x x x x x" (underscoring ours)
When two or more persons are charged as co-conspirators in the crime of
robbery with rape, the conspiracy to rob is all that is needed to be proven to
punish them all as principals in the crime of robbery with rape. The rape may have been perpetrated by only
one of them, but they will all be convicted of robbery with rape, because the
rule in this jurisdiction is that whenever a
rape is committed as a consequence, or on the occasion of a robbery, all
those who took part therein are liable as principals of the crime of robbery
with rape, although not all of them actually took part in the rape.[42] It is enough that robbery shall
have been accompanied by rape to be punishable under the The Revised Penal Code
which does not differentiate whether the rape was committed before, during or
after the robbery.[43] Thus, we have held in one case that
where one of the accused acted as guard while rape was being committed on the occasion
of the robbery, he is guilty as
co-principal of the crime of robbery with rape.[44] As we explained in the 1918 case of
United States v. Tiongco:
" x x x [T]he robbers
seizing the money and the other effects they found in said house, two of them
sullied the honor of the two women living therein, and the companions of the
two men who committed the rape made no opposition nor prevented these latter
from consummating this other crime, apparently unconnected with and unrelated
to that of robbery, but which, as well as sanguinary crimes, is often committed
on such occasions, and it is for this reason that the penal law, in odium of
such offenses against property and chastity, has considered them complex and
punished them by one single penalty.
"x x x The defendants
Rufu Tiongco and Pedro Huerva, who took no part in the rape of the women
Juaneza and Eusula, cannot be excepted from this penalty for the reason that
the penal law does not require the condition that the rape be committed prior
to, or simultaneously with the robbery, it being sufficient that this crime be
perpetrated on the occasion of the robbery.
So the law says, in the definition of the crime, that when the robbery
is accompanied by rape or mutilation caused purposely, all the robbers who took
part in the perpetration of the complex crime are liable for all the offenses
falling within the limitation of certain circumstances specified by the law,
committed by the members of the band.
"x x x x
x x x x x
"Therefore, the
defendants Tiongco and Huerva, for the very reason that they are liable for the
said crime of robbery in a band, are likewise liable for all the other acts
performed on the occasion of the robbery, although they may not actually and
materially have taken any part in the rape committed upon those two women by
the other two defendants, their companions Ledesma and Castano.
"If any of the
defendants had wounded or killed an inmate of the house that they robbed, all
the defendants would, under the law, have been punished for the complex crime
of robbery with the infliction of wounds of the commission of homicide; and, in
the present case, because two of the robbers raped two women, all the
malefactors are liable for the complex crime in question."[45]
In other words, for Mendoza to be convicted only of the crime of
robbery, he must prove not only that he himself did not abuse the victim but
that he tried to prevent the rape. We
have previously ruled that once conspiracy is established between the two
accused in the commission of the crime of robbery, they would be both equally
culpable for the rape committed by one of them on the occasion of the robbery,
unless any of them proves that he endeavored to prevent the other from
committing rape.[46]
Mendoza cannot
seek sanctuary in our jurisprudence that where there is no evidence that the
accused was aware of his co-accused's lustful intent and his consummation
thereof so that he could have attempted to prevent the same, the former should
be held only for the robbery and not for the rape.[47] In the case at bar, the evidence
shows that during the commission of the rape, Mendoza climbed up and out of the
bathroom through the window and stayed at the roof of the terrace. The window, located above the roof of the
terrace, was about 3-1/2 meters away from where the victim and Balagtas were.
Mendoza knew of the rape because the private complainant saw him peep through
the window and watch what was being done to her by Balagtas. Nonetheless, Mendoza did nothing to prevent
the rape.
Lastly, Mendoza
submits that the trial court erred in not appreciating the privileged
mitigating circumstance of minority in his favor, considering that he was
allegedly born on June 30, 1975 and was thus only 16 years, 1 month, and 23
days old on August 23, 1991, the day the crime was committed.
The burden of
proof that Mendoza was a minor at the time of the commission of the offense is
on him.[48] He presented, however, conflicting
evidence of his date of birth. On the one hand, when Mendoza filed in the trial
court a Motion for Release of the Accused Under Recognizance[49] on August 21, 1992, he attached a
photocopy[50] of his birth certificate indicating
his birthday to be June 30, 1981. On
the other hand, when he testified in open court on September 8, 1992, he
declared that he was born on June 30, 1975.[51] And then just two days after that
declaration, he filed in the trial court a Manifestation[52] with an original copy of his birth
certificate, complete with documentary stamps and the seal of the Local Civil
Registrar of Sta. Maria, Bulacan, indicating his date of birth to be June 30,
1974.[53]
After going
through the said evidence, we find that Mendoza was born on June 30, 1974 and
was thus 17 years old at the time of the commission of the crime. The special mitigating circumstance of minority
under Paragraph 2, Article 68 of the Revised Penal Code should, therefore, be
appreciated in Mendoza's favor. Said
provision reads:
"ART. 68. Penalty to be imposed upon a person under
eighteen years of age. x x x
"1. x x x x
x x x x x
2. Upon a person over
fifteen and under eighteen years of age the penalty next lower than that
prescribed by law shall be imposed but always in the proper period."
The penalty
prescribed by law for the crime of robbery with rape is reclusion perpetua to death.
Applying Article 61 (2) of the Revised Penal Code, the penalty next
lower in degree is reclusion temporal. We agree with the trial court
that the aggravating circumstances of nocturnity and abuse of superior strength
attended the commission of the crime. Even
the defense did not make any issue of
this. When one or more aggravating
circumstances are present in the commission of the crime, with no ordinary
mitigating circumstances to offset them, the penalty shall be imposed in its
maximum period.[54] The imposable penalty prescribed by
law, therefore, is reclusion temporal in its maximum period. We further apply the Indeterminate Sentence
Law authorizing the minimum term of the indeterminate sentence to be within the
range of the penalty next lower to that prescribed for the offense.[55] In view of all these, this Court
imposes upon Mendoza the indeterminate sentence of 10 years and 1 day of prision
mayor in its maximum period to 18 years, 2 months and 21 days of reclusion
temporal in its maximum period.
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the decision
of the Regional Trial Court of Bulacan, Third Judicial Region, Branch 14,
Malolos, dated May 18, 1995, finding ERIC MENDOZA guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of Robbery with Rape
and liable for P12,000.00 as actual damages and P100,000.00 as
moral damages, with costs, is HEREBY AFFIRMED with the modification that this
Court imposes upon ERIC MENDOZA an indeterminate sentence of 10 years and 1 day
of prision mayor in its maximum period to 18 years, 2 months and 21 days
of reclusion temporal in its maximum period. No pronouncement as to costs.
SO ORDERED.
Regalado,
(Chairman), Melo, Mendoza, and Martinez, JJ., concur.
[1]
Decision of the Regional Trial Court of Bulacan, 3rd Judicial Region,
Branch 14, Malolos, dated May 18, 1995, Rollo, pp. 20-29.
[2]
Penned by Judge Felipe N. Villajuan, Jr.
[3]
Notice of Appeal dated June 13, 1995, Rollo, p. 30.
[4]
Dated September 20, 1991, Rollo, pp. 7-8.
[5]
TSN dated January 7, 1994, pp. 6-9; TSN dated April 7, 1992, pp. 14-16.
[6]
TSN dated April 7, 1992, p. 14.
[7]
TSN dated January 7, 1994, pp. 18-19; TSN dated April 7, 1992, pp.
22-23.
[8]
TSN dated January 7, 1994, p. 10.
[9]
Id., pp. 10-11.
[10]
TSN dated January 7, 1994, p. 12; TSN dated April 7, 1992, pp. 17-18.
[11]
TSN dated April 7, 1992, pp. 18-19.
[12]
TSN dated January 7, 1994, p. 15; TSN dated April 7, 1992, pp. 19-20.
[13]
TSN dated January 7, 1994, p. 5.
[14]
See note no. 7.
[15]
TSN dated January 7, 1994, pp. 21-22; TSN dated April 7, 1992, p. 24.
[16]
TSN dated January 7, 1994, pp. 25-28; TSN dated April 7, 1992, pp.
26-29.
[17]
TSN dated April 7, 1992, p. 29.
[18]
TSN dated January 7, 1994, p. 29; TSN dated April 7, 1992, p. 30.
[19]
TSN dated January 7, 1994, p. 33.
[20]
TSN dated January 7, 1994, p. 34; TSN dated April 7, 1992, p. 35.
[21]
TSN dated January 7, 1994, pp. 36-39; TSN dated April 7, 1992, pp.
36-39.
[22]
TSN dated January 7, 1994, p. 39; TSN dated April 7, 1992, p. 39.
[23]
TSN dated March 11, 1993, pp. 15-16.
[24]
TSN dated September 8, 1992, p. 9. (The entry in the Barangay Blotter reads:
"Ngayong ika-10:00 ng umaga, Agosto 23, 1991 ay dumating sa aking
tanggapan si Andrelita Sto. Domingo kasama ang kanyang asawa at inireport na
ang kanilang tahanan ay pinasok ng dalawang lalaki, ang isa ay si Eric Mendoza
na siyang dito ay nilooban ng mga alahas na nagkakahalaga ng P10,500.00
at halagang P2,000.00 at pagkatapos ay ginahasa pa si Andrelita Sto.
Domingo ng taong kasama ni Eric Mendoza." )
[25]
Id., p. 20.
[26]
Id., pp. 12-15.
[27]
TSN dated March 5, 1992, pp. 7-13.
[28]
TSN dated September 19, 1994, pp. 5-6.
[29]
Ibid.
[30]
TSN dated September 19, 1994, p. 7.
[31]
Brief for Accused-Appellant Eric Mendoza, pp. 1-2, Rollo, pp.
52-53.
[32]
People v. Ching, 240 SCRA 267, 279-280 [1995]; People v.
Ulili, 225 SCRA 594, 605 [1993].
[33]
People vs. Valdez, 150 SCRA 405, 410 [1987].
[34]
Id., p. 376.
[35]
People v. Pascua, 206 SCRA 628, 635[1992].
[36]
People v. Narajos, 149 SCRA 101, 107 [1987]; People v.
Radomes, 141 SCRA 548, 559 [1986].
[37]
People v. Lardizabal, 204 SCRA 320, 330 [1991], citing People v.
Sarabia, 127 SCRA 101, 111 [1984].
[38]
People v. Corpuz, 240 SCRA 203, 210 [1995].
[39]
Ibid.
[40]
Section 3(j), Rule 131, Revised Rules of court; United States v.
Soriano, 9 Phil. 98, 99 [1907].
[41]
Aquino, Ramon C., The Revised Penal Code, 1988 Edition, Volume III, P. 186, citing People v. Aragon, Jr.
(Court of Appeals), 53 O.G. 5282
[1957].
[42]
People v. Lascuna, 225 SCRA 386, 400-401 [1993].
[43]
People v. Caisip, et al., 105 Phil. 1180, 1186-1187
[1959].
[44]
People v. Carlon, 89 Phil. 105, 108 [1951].
[45]
United States v. Tiongco, 37 Phil. 951, 953-955 [1918].
[46]
People v. Baello, 224 SCRA 218, 233-234 [1993]; People v.
Salvatierra, 257 SCRA 489, 506-507 [1996]; People v. Macam, 238 SCRA
306, 315; 317 [1994], citing People v. Veloso, 112 SCRA 173 [1982];
People v. Bautista, 49 Phil. 389 [1926]; U.S. v. Macalalad, 9
Phil. 1 [1907].
[47]
People v. Canturia, 245 SCRA 275, 278; 285 [1995].
[48]
People v. Lugto, 190 SCRA 754, 757 [1990].
[49]
Original Records, Vol. I, p. 57.
[50]
Id., p. 58.
[51]
TSN dated September 8, 1992, p. 30,
Original Records, Vol. I, p. 159.
[52]
Dated September 10, 1992,
Original Records, Vol. I, p. 72.
[53]
Id., p. 73.
[54]
Art. 64 (3), Revised Penal Code.
[55]
Sec. 1, Act No. 4103, as amended by Act No. 4225.