SECOND DIVISION
[G.R. No. 136113.
August 23, 2000]
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee,
vs. WILLIE QUIBIDO, RUEL QUIBIDO, and JOHN DOE, (All At Large)
RODOLFO MONTEMAYOR ALIAS “DOLFO”, accused appellant.
D E C I S I O N
DE LEON, JR., J.:
Before us on
appeal is the Decision[1] of the Regional Trial Court of
Calapan City, Oriental Mindoro, Branch 40, in Criminal Case No. C-3971,
convicting herein appellant, Rodolfo Montemayor, and his co-accused, Ruel
Quibido, of the crime of robbery with homicide.
The lifeless
body of Sofio Verguela was discovered inside his house in Bagong Silang,
Victoria, Oriental Mindoro, lying face down on the floor in a pool of blood, in
the early morning of February 16, 1993.
His head was bashed with a blunt instrument fracturing the skull and
exposing parts of his brain tissues. It
was also discovered that one (1) blanket, one (1) radio and a wallet containing
undetermined amount of money, all belonging to the victim, were missing.[2]
On February 24,
1993, Luciano M. Vergara and Pedrito B. de Lara executed separate sworn
statements before PO3 Herbert Tabernero of the Victoria, Oriental Mindoro
police. Vergara stated in his sworn
statement that he saw Willie Quibido, Jr., Ruel Quibido, a certain alias Dolfo,
and another unidentified person, acting suspiciously while in the act of coming
out of the house of the victim, at about the same time the killing incident
happened at 9:00 o’clock in the evening on February 15, 1993. On the other hand, de Lara was able to
recognize from the group Willie Quibido, Jr. only.[3] Consequently, the accused Willie
Quibido, Jr., Ruel Quibido, a John Doe and a Peter Doe were charged with the
crime of robbery with homicide, defined and penalized under Article 294,
paragraph 1 of the Revised Penal Code, in an information that reads:
That on or about the 15th day of
February 1993, at around 9:00 o’clock in the evening, in Barangay Bagong
Silang, Municipality of Victoria, Province of Oriental Mindoro, Philippines,
and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused,
conspiring, confederating and mutually helping one another, taking advantage of
the darkness of the night, with evident premeditation and by means of violence,
did then and there wilfully, unlawfully and feloniously enter the house of
SOFIO VERGUELA also known as SOFIO VERGUERA and once inside, wilfully,
unlawfully and feloniously, with the use of violence, with intent to gain and
against the will and consent of the owner thereof, took and carried away one
(1) radio, one (1) blanket, one (1) wallet and undetermined amount of money all
belonging to the latter, to the damage and prejudice of the said owner in the
value of properties aforementioned;
That on the occasion of said
robbery and for the purpose of enabling them to take, steal and carry away the
properties above-mentioned, the herein accused, in pursuance of their
conspiracy and taking advantage of their superior strength, did then and there
wilfully, unlawfully, feloniously and treacherously, with intent to kill and
evident premeditation, attack, assault and hit on the head with a hard object
the said SOFIO VERGUELA also known as SOFIO VERGUERA, thereby inflicting on the
latter severe brain injury due to skull fracture resulting in his untimely
death.
CONTRARY TO LAW.
Willie Quibido,
Jr. was never apprehended and remains at large up to the present. Herein appellant Rodolfo Montemayor who was
initially denominated as John Doe in the information in this case, and his
co-accused, Ruel Quibido, were arrested on August 29, 1994 and September 5,
1994, respectively. Upon being
arraigned on September 28, 1994, Rodolfo Montemayor, alias Dolfo, and Ruel
Quibido, [4] both assisted by counsel de oficio, separately entered the plea of
“Not guilty”.
Meanwhile, Emil
Berganio was arrested by the police on November 11, 1994. After having agreed to testify in favor of
the prosecution, Berganio’s name was not included in the information as one of
the accused in this case. On the same date of his arrest, his sworn statement[5] was taken and which he subscribed
and sworn to before Oriental Mindoro Chief Assistant Provincial Prosecutor
Nicolas B. Senoren.
The evidence of
the prosecution shows that on February 15, 1993 at around 5:00 o’clock in the
afternoon the appellant, Rodolfo Montemayor alias Dolfo, and a certain Bokno
invited Emil Berganio, a barrio mate in Barangay Antonino, Victoria, Oriental
Mindoro, to join them to go out of town in search for employment. Emil went with Dolfo and Bokno upon learning
that they were supposed to leave early on the following morning after they
shall have allegedly collected a debt, to be used for their fare to Batangas,
from a certain person in Barangay Bagong Silang, Victoria, Oriental Mindoro.[6]
While walking
alongside the NIA irrigation canal, the trio met Bokno’s brother, Ruel Quibido,
and his wife at a waiting shed. The
group then boarded a passenger jeepney that took them to the neighboring
Barangay Macatoc. From Barangay
Macatoc, they proceeded on foot to the nearby Barangay Bagong Silang.[7]
As planned
earlier, Ruel, Bokno and Dolfo entered a two (2) storey house in Barangay
Bagong Silang, Victoria, Oriental Mindoro at around 9:00 o’clock in the
evening. Emil remained outside the
house presumably as look out, while Ruel’s wife was left outside the
fence. From a distance of about three
(3) arms length, Emil saw Ruel through the light emanating from a gas lamp
inside the house, demanded money from an old man, whose name Emil later learned
as Sofio Verguela, while Dolfo was pointing his airgun at him. When the old man replied that he had no
money, Ruel hit him on the head with the shotgun which he earlier carried
inside a sack, and then Bokno stabbed him.
After the old man fell on the floor, Ruel took his wallet, while the
others took his radio, before they hurriedly left for Poblacion, Victoria,
Oriental Mindoro.[8]
After a few
hours, the group rode the bus at the public market in Victoria, Oriental
Mindoro en route to Calapan City. Upon
reaching Calapan City, they dropped by the house of Ruel Quibido’s mother for a
few minutes before they boarded the boat at the pier bound for Batangas. They stayed in the house of Ruel Quibido’s
parents-in-law in Nasugbu, Batangas for more than one (1) month. Subsequently, they moved to Metro Manila in
the house of Ruel Quibido’s uncle in Quezon City where they stayed for more
than two (2) months after which Emil decided to return home in Victoria,
Oriental Mindoro ahead of his companions.[9] Emil disclosed to the police his
knowledge involving the killing of Sofio Verguela when he was arrested on
November 11, 1994, upon the advice of his father, after he was assured by the
police of immunity from the instant criminal case.[10]
Dr. Ruben A.
Quimosing, M.D., Municipal Health Officer of Victoria, oriental, Mindoro during
the time material to the instant case, conducted the post mortem examination on
the body of the victim, Sofio Verguela.
The autopsy report dated February 16, 1993 and signed by Dr. Ruben A.
Quimosing shows the following findings:
Skull, open
Brain tissue, avulsed, with
laceration
Cause of death: Severe brain injury
due to skull fracture.[11]
Dr. Quimosing
testified in court that the single blow sustained by the victim on the frontal
left portion of his head which fractured the skull caused severe brain injury
that inevitably resulted to his instantaneous death. The blow may have been inflicted with the use of any hard object
while the victim and the assailant were facing each other.[12]
The defense
denied any liability for the crime of robbery with homicide. Apellant Rodolfo Montemayor testified that
on February 15, 1993 and during the period prior thereto, he shared a house
with his brother, Randy Montemayor, in Barangay Loyal, Victoria, Oriental
Mondoro which is about twenty (20) kilometers of mountainous terrain from
Barangay Bagong Silang of the same town. From Barangay Loyal, one had to pass
by the town proper in order to reach, in two (2) hours, Barangay Bagong Silang
with the use of a motor vehicle. If a person were to travel on foot, the
distance between the two (2) barangays can be covered in about five (5) hours.[13]
On February 15,
1993, at around 9:00 o'clock in the evening, Rodolfo played "dama" in
the house of his neighbor, Benjamin Grimaldo. He went home to sleep only after
10:00 o'clock in the evening.[14]
The appellant
denied using the alias name "Dolfo".[15] He likewise denied that he knew
Willie Quibido, Jr. and Ruel Quibido on February 15, 1993. Rodolfo heard of
their names through their sister, Rowena Quibido, whom he met in Minas,
Victoria, Oriental Mindoro only on May 4, 1993, and who became his common-law
wife on May 31, 1993.[16]
On August 26,
1994, at 9:00 o'clock in the morning, Rowena and Rodolfo visited the house of
the former's parents in Danggari, Victoria, Oriental Mindoro. Willie Quibido,
Sr. and his wife, Rosita, including their sons, Jojo and Ruel Quibido, were
present on the said occasion. At around 9:00 o'clock in the evening, a police
team headed by a certain Magnayon raided the house of Willie Quibido, Sr. The
police failed to arrest Willie Quibido, Sr. and his sons, Jojo and Ruel, for
the reason that they had left earlier toward the forest at around 8:00 o'clock
in the evening. Rodolfo and Rosita denied to the police having any knowledge on
the whereabouts of Willie Quibido, Sr. and his sons,[17] namely, accused Willie Quibido, Jr.
and Ruel Quibido.
After the police
had departed, appellant Rodolfo Montemayor and Rowena took Rosita to a relative
in Poblacion, Victoria, Oriental Mindoro inasmuch as she needed to take
medicine. On August 27, 1994, the three (3) proceeded to Barangay Loyal,
Victoria, Oriental Mindoro. However, a person carrying a letter arrived and
invited them to the police detachment for investigation. Upon arrival at the
police detachment in Malayas, Victoria, Oriental Mindoro, the appellant was
asked by Magnayon, who earlier headed the team that raided the house of Willie
Quibido, where they could possibly find Willie Quibido and his sons Jojo and
Ruel. When he answered in the negative, Magnayon warned that he (appellant) may
be implicated in the crime.[18]
On August 28,
1994, at around 3:00 o'clock in the afternoon, a certain Diego and Emil
Berganio arrived at the Malayas police detachment. Magnayon introduced the
appellant,, as the "son-in-law of Willie Quibido, Sr. and brother-in-law
of Ruel Quibido", before Diego and Emil had a conversation with Magnayon
inside the latter's office.[19] Thereafter, the appellant was
brought to the PNP headquarters in Calapan City, Oriental Mindoro.
Incidentally,
after learning from a neighbor on February 16, 1993 of the death of
Sofio Verguela, defense witness Pedrito B. de Lara went to see Sonny de Ocampo,
who is the late Verguela's son-in-law, to inform him of what he saw on the
evening of February 15, 1993 when the victim was purportedly killed. Pedrito
related to Sonny that he met Willie Quibido, Jr. and Ruel Quibido together with
two (2) other persons on February 15, 1993 at around 9:00 o'clock in the
evening along the road in Barangay Bagong Silang, Victoria, Oriental Mindoro
which was about fifty (50) meters away from the house of his father-in-law. He
was on his way home after watching television in the house of his uncle while
Willie Quibido, Jr., Ruel Quibido together with two (2) other persons were
heading towards the opposite direction. He inquired where they were going (Saan
ang lakad n'yo?) but nobody answered from the group inasmuch as they were
walking hurriedly. Pedrito did not know the two (2) other companions of Willie
Quibido, Jr. and Ruel Quibido although he saw their faces when he focussed his
flashlight on them. He declared on the witness stand that appellant Rodolfo
Montemayor was not one of the companions of the Quibido brothers.[20]
In addition,
Pedrito recalled that four (4) days prior to the killing of Sofio Verguela,
Willie Quibido, Jr. invited him to join in robbing the store of a certain
Angeles Vergara whose house was located directly across the house of the victim
in Barangay Bagong Silang. Pedrito refused. He did not report the incident to
the police authorities however, for the reason that he did not wish to offend
Willie Quibido, Jr. who was a childhood friend.[21]
After analyzing
the evidence, the trial court found as follows:
It is clear from the testimony of
prosecution witness Emil Berganio that he was certain that said accused Rodolfo
Montemayor alias "Dolfo" poked an airgun at the victim, while accused
Ruel Quibido demanded money, and when the victim replied to have no money, Ruel
Quibido hit the victim with a shotgun while accused only named
"Bokno" stabbed him.
In the face of the foregoing clear
and positive identification of accused Rodolfo Montemayor, alias
"Dolfo" as one of those who robbed and killed Sofio Verguela, his
defense of alibi clearly appears nothing but a mere concoction - a fabrication
designed to exculpate him of the crime charged.
It is also striking to note that
the defense did not even present in Court Benjamin Grimaldo to corroborate the
testimonies given by accused Rodolfo Montermayor that the latter was playing
"dama" with the former when the incident happened. This cast a grave
doubt as to the veracity and truthfulness of the testimonies given by accused
Rodolfo Montemayor.
xxx the Court is more inclined to
believe the testimonies given by prosecution witness Emil Berganio, whose
veracity can hardly be assailed and had narrated in detail the facts of hove
the crime was committed. Said witness was able to clearly identify the accused
Ruel Quibido, Willie Quibido (Jr.) and Rodolfo Montemayor alias "Dolfo"
as the perpetrators of the crime charged.
From the clear evidence presented
by the prosecution, accused Ruel Quibido did not put up a defense; instead, he
opted to escape from detention. His escape even during the pendency of the
case, is therefore a clear indication of his guilt,
Hence, it ruled
thus:
ACCORDINGLY, finding herein accused
RUEL QUIBIDO and RODOLFO MONTEMAYOR alias "Dolfo" guilty beyond
reasonable doubt of the complex crime of "Robbery with Homicide"
punishable under Article 294(1) of the Revised Penal Code, and there being no
mitigating nor aggravating circumstance present in this case, said accused are
hereby sentenced to suffer the penalty of "RECLUSION PERPETUA" with
all the accessory penalties provided by law, and to indemnify the heirs of the
victim Sofio Verguela the amount of Fifty Thousand Pesos (P50,000.00) as moral
and exemplary damages and to pay the costs.
Appellant
Rodolfo Montemayor interposed the following assignment of errors:
I.
THE TRIAL COURT GRAVELY ERRED IN FINDING THE ACCUSED-APPELLANT
GUILTY BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT OF THE CRIME OF ROBBERY WITH HOMICIDE
DESPITE INSUFFICIENCY OF EVIDENCE.
II
THE COURT A QUO GRAVELY ERRED GIVING FULL
WEIGHT AND CREDENCE TO THE INCREDIBLE TESTIMONY OF EMIL BERGANIO AND IN NOT
APPRECIATING THE DEFENSE INTERPOSED BY THE ACCUSED APPELLANT.
The trial court
accorded full faith and credence to the testimony of the lone prosecution
witness, Emil Berganio. On the other hand, appellant Rodolfo Montemayor
contends in his appeal 1) that the execution of Emil Berganio's sworn statement
after his arrest on November 11, 1994 cast serious doubt on his credibility; 2)
that the physical evidence on record contradicts the testimony of Emil Berganio
on material points; 3) that Berganio's testimony is highly incredible inasmuch
as it contradicts human experience; and 4) that defense witness Pedrito de Lara
categorically stated that the appellant was not one of the two companions of
Willie Quibido, Jr. and Ruel Quibido in the evening of February 15, 1993.[22] Consequently, the fate of the
instant appeal rests on the determination of the credibility of prosecution
witness Emil Berganio.
It is a
well-settled rule that testimonial evidence to be believed must not only
proceed from the mouth of a credible witness but must foremost be credible in
itself.[23] The test to determine the value or
credibility of testimony of a witness is whether or not such is in conformity
with common knowledge and consistent with the experience of mankind.[24]
Prosecution
witness Emil Berganio confessed that he was in the company of herein appellant
Rodolfo Montemayor alias Dolfo, Willie Quibido, Jr. and Ruel Quibido when they
robbed and killed Sofio Verguela inside his house. in Bagong Silang, Victoria,
Oriental Mindoro in the evening of February 15, 1993. However, the fact that he
may have been a co-conspirator in the commission of the offense is not in
itself sufficient to dilute the credibility of, much less a ground to disregard
altogether, his testimony.
The general rule
is that the testimony of a co-conspirator is not sufficient for conviction
unless supported by other evidence. The reason is that it comes from a polluted
source. It must be received with caution because, as is usual with human
nature, a culprit, confessing a crime, is likely to put the blame as far as
possible on others rather than himself.[25]
By way of
exception, the testimony of a co-conspirator may, even if uncorroborated, be
sufficient as when it is shown to be sincere in itself, because given
unhesitatingly and in a straightforward manner, and is full of details which by
their nature could not have been the result of deliberate afterthought.[26]
Admittedly, Emil
Berganio agreed to testify for the prosecution upon advice of his father after
having been assured of immunity from the instant criminal complaint by the
prosecution. True to his undertaking, Emil narrated during the trial in a
candid and straightforward manner, a detailed account of the facts and
circumstances before, during and after the commission of the crime, subject of
the instant criminal case. In the course of his testimony, Emil clearly and
positively identified in court the accused Ruel Quibido and herein appellant,
Rodolfo Montemayor, as among the persons who robbed and killed Sofio Verguela.[27] He was consistent in his testimony
and did not waver even during the extensive and rigorous cross-examination of
the defense counsel, thus giving the Court a clear impression that he was
sincere and credible.
The trial court
correctly rejected the defense of alibi of the appellant for the reason that he
was positively identified by prosecution eyewitness Emil Berganio who does not
appear to have any motive against him to fabricate evidence.[28] Also, the distance of the alleged
whereabouts of the appellant in relation to the scene of the crime does not
preclude any doubt on the physical impossibility of his presence at the locus criminis or its immediate vicinity at the
time of its commission.[29]
Hence, it has
been established beyond reasonable doubt by the evidence on record that herein
appellant Rodolfo Montemayor and his co-accused, Ruel Quibido and a certain
Bokno, together with prosecution witness Emil Berganio went to Barangay Bagong
Silang, Victoria, Oriental Mindoro in the late afternoon of February 15, 1993.
Upon arrival thereat at 9:00 o'clock in the evening, Rodolfo, Ruel and Bokno
entered the house of Sofio Verguela as earlier planned. Emil remained outside
the house presumably to act as a look out. Ruel demanded money from Sofio while
Rodolfo was pointing his airgun at him. Subsequently, Ruel hit Sofio's head
with a shotgun when the latter who was an old man refused, stating that he had
no money. They then divested Sofio of his wallet and radio before heading for
the Victoria Public Market in Victoria, Oriental Mindoro en route to Calapan
City. The group stayed for more than one (1) month in Nasugbu, Batangas before
moving to Quezon City, Metro Manila.
After more than two (2) months, Emil returned to Victoria, Oriental
Mindoro where he was arrested by the police on November 11, 1994.
Appellant
Rodolfo Mantemayor contends that Emil Berganio could not have possibly
witnessed the killing on February 15, 1993 of Sofio Verguela, whose lifeless
body was found by the police Inside his room on the following day, inasmuch as
according to Berganio, he remained outside the house. Appellant also contends
that contrary to the testimony of Berganio to the effect that Bokno stabbed
Sofio Verguela, the autopsy report dated February 16, 1993, did not reflect a
finding of any stab wound on the body of the said victim.
The above
contentions of appellant are inadequate to overturn the established fact that
Emil Berganio was in the company of the appellant and his co-accused in
Barangay Bagong Silang, Victoria, Oriental Mindoro in the evening of February
15, 1993 when they robbed and killed Sofio Verguela inside his house. While
Emil remained outside the house presumably to serve as a look out, his relative
position was merely three (3) arms length away from the scene of the crime.
Considering the proximity of his location and the illumination emanating from a
gas lamp inside the house, it was not impossible for him to see the crime that
was then unfolding.
Likewise, the
apparent discrepancy between the testimony of Emil Berganio that Bokno stabbed
Sofio and the negative findings on the matter in the autopsy report is not
sufficient to erode the credibility of his said testimony. Such misappreciation
of Bokno's individual participation in the crime becomes immaterial in view of
the fact that the prosecution witness has shown clearly and convincingly during
the trial that he was aware of the violence that was being perpetrated by the
appellant and his co-accused against Sofio Verguela in furtherance of their
evil conspiracy. Emil testified in court that prior to the commission of the
crime, Rodolfo and Ruel were respectively armed with an airgun and a shotgun.
Rodolfo and his co-accused even discussed their plan[30] before entering the house of Sofio
Verguela against the latter's will in Barangay Bagong Silang, Victoria,
Oriental Mindoro.
The appellant
also contends that it was unlikely for Emil Berganio to have joined the
appellant and Bokno, whom he admitted were not close acquaintances, after being
invited to join them to go out of town allegedly to search for employment. This
contention is bereft of merit for the reason that Bokno is a barrio mate[31] of Emil in Barangay Antonino,
Victoria, Oriental Mindoro; and that he personally knew Bokno's brother, Ruel
Quibido, who is also one of the accused in the case at bench. That Emil
erroneously referred to Ruel Quibido's wife as Rowena, when the said name
allegedly refers to Quibido's sister, who is the appellant's common-law-wife,
is quite a minor detail that has no adverse bearing on his credibility.[32]
Lastly, the
testimony of defense witness Pedrito de Lara that herein appellant was not one
of the two (2) companions of Willie Quibido, Jr. and Ruel Quibido appears
doubtful or unreliable in view of the fact that it was dark when he met them by
chance in the evening of February 15, 1995. According to him, he was able to
focus his flashlight at them for about sixty (60) seconds only inasmuch as they
were in a hurry and avoided any conversation with him. In fact, he only
recognized Willie Quibido, Jr. and Ruel Quibido[33] whom he already knew from
childhood.
In view of the
foregoing, the guilt of the appellant for the crime of robbery with homicide
was established beyond reasonable doubt. Article 294 (1) of the Revised Penal
Code provides:
ART. 294. Any person guilty of
robbery with the use of violence against or any person shall suffer:
1. The
penalty of reclusion perpetua to death, when by reason or on occasion of
the robbery, the crime of homicide shall have been committed, or when the
robbery shall have been accompanied by rape or intentional mutilation or arson.
Notably, the
aggravating circumstances of treachery, nocturnity and dwelling attended the
commission of the robbery and the killing of Sofio Verguela on the occasion
thereof. Still, the proper imposable penalty is reclusion perpetua
considering that at the time of the commission of the crime on February 15,
1993, the imposition of the death penalty was legally proscribed.
WHEREFORE, the appealed Decision of the
Regional Trial Court of Calapan City, Oriental Mindoro, Branch 40, is AFFIRMED.
The appellant, Rodolfo Montemayor, is hereby sentenced to suffer the
penalty of reclusion perpetua and to pay to the heirs of the victim
Soflo Verguela, the amount of P50,000.00 by way of civil indemnity ex delicto
in addition to the amount of P50,000.00 as exemplary damages and to restore to
the said heirs the stolen items belonging to the victim.
SO ORDERED.
Bellosillo,
(Chairman), Mendoza, Quisumbing, and Buena, JJ., concur.
[1] Penned
by Judge Tomas C. Leynes. Rollo, pp. 12-19.
[2] TSN
dated May 2, 1996, pp. 7-10; Exhibits “B”, “B-1”.
[3] Exhibit
“1”.
[4] Ruel
Quibido was tried in absentia after the said accused escaped from jail during
the trial.
[5] Exhibit
“A”.
[6] TSN
dated February 24, 1995, pp. 4, 34-40.
[7] Id.,
pp. 8-9, 41.
[8] Id.,
pp. 9-18, 47-49, 52.
[9] Id.,
pp. 18-22.
[10] Id.,
pp. 25-28.
[11] Exhibit
“E.”
[12] TSN
dated July 31, 1997, pp. 8-10.
[13] TSN
dated February 18, 1998, pp. 4-7.
[14] Ibid.
[15] Id.,
p. 23.
[16] Id.,
pp. 8-9.
[17] Id.,
pp. 9-12.
[18] Id.,
pp. 13-15.
[19] Id.,
pp. 16-17.
[20] TSN
dated June 2, 1998, pp. 4-10.
[21] Id.,
pp. 11-12.21
[22] Appellant’s
Brief, Rollo, pp. 40-64.
[23] People
vs. Cayabyab, 274 SCRA 387, 398 (1997); People vs. Obzunar, 265
SCRA 547, 567 (1996).
[24] People
vs. Gazmen, 247 SCRA 414, 419 (1995).
[25] People
vs. Cuya, Jr., 141 SCRA 351, 354 (1986) citing People vs.
Sarmiento, 69 Phil. 740, 742 (1940).
[26] Ibid.
[27] TSN
dated February 24, 1995, pp. 4(a)-6.
[28] People
vs. De Guia, 280 SCRA 141, 158 (1997).
[29] People
vs. Andal, 279 SCRA 474, 491 (1997).
[30] TSN
dated February 24, 1995, pp. 9-10.
[31] Id.,
p. 34.
[32] People
vs. Gondora, 265 SCRA 408 (1996).
[33] Pedrito
de Lara named Ruel Quibido only in his second Sworn Statement dated March 15,
1993. Original record, p. 15.