EN BANC
[G.R. No. 133226. March 16, 2000]
PEOPLE OF THE
PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. LOCSIN FABON @
"Loklok," accused-appellant.
D E C I S I O N
PER CURIAM:
Circumstantial evidence coupled with
accused-appellant's flight from the town where the crime as committed sealed
his fate and merited his conviction of a heinous crime and the corresponding
imposition of the supreme penalty of death. Â h Y
In an information filed before the Regional
Trial Court of Hilongos, Leyte, docketed as Criminal Case No. H-642,
accused-appellant Locsin Fabon, alias "Loklok." was charged with the
crime of robbery with homicide accompanied by rape and intentional mutilation.[1] The information reads:
That on or about
the 23rd day of April 1995, in the Municipality of Hilongos,
Province of Leyte, Philippines and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable
Court, said accused at the house of the victim did then and there, willfully,
unlawfully and feloniously with intent to gain by means of force and violence against
one BONIFACIA LASQUITE, take and carry away, sum of money consisting of bills
of assorted denominations and coins amounting to TWENTY FIVE THOUSAND PESOS
(P25,000.00) more or less, Philippine Currency, and by reason or on occasion of
the robbery the same accused attack (sic) and take (sic) the life of the victim
with the use of [a] bladed weapon, thus wounding:
1. Lacerated wound
on (R) side of the forehead about 0.5 cm. x 0.2 cm. with a depressed skull
fracture;
2. Stabbed (sic)
wound (punctured-like) at the (R) side of the epigastic area;
3. Stabbed (sic)
wound (punctured-like) at the 3rd intercostal space (L) parasternal line;
4. Depressed
fracture (L) parieto-occipital area;
5. Hematoma
formation, lower jaw and at the base of the neck;
6. Multiple hematoma
formation at the epigastic area, RUQ and anterior chest wall; which clearly
evince the manifest and intentional mutilation of victim's person or corspe
(sic); and likewise on the same occasion of the robbery, rape has (sic) been
committed by the same accused on the person of the victim, BONIFACIA LASQUITE,
as shown by the autopsy report, thus:
7. Hematoma
formation noted on both sides of vaginal canal and near urethral opening;
8. Hematoma
formation (L) hand, dorsal aspect of metacarpo-phalangeal joint;
9. Tonge (sic)
half bitten and directed to the right side.
ACTS CONTRARY TO
LAW.[2]
Upon being arraigned on 26 September 1995,
accused-appellant, assisted by counsel de oficio, Atty. Mario Alonzo of
the Public Attorney's Office, pleaded "not guilty" to the offense
charged.[3]
The prosecution presented Benjamin Milano,
the nine (9) year old nephew and neighbor of the accused-appellant, as its
first witness. He testified that on 23 April 1995, at around five o'clock in
the morning, he was awakened by his mother to fetch water for their morning
meal.[4] Bringing along a container, he then proceeded to the
water pump of Bonifacia Lasquite, located at the back of the latter's house.[5] After filling up his container, he then went on his
way home.[6] However, while still near the house of Bonifacia
Lasquite, he noticed that someone was coming from the fence of Bonifacia
Lasquite's house.[7] Although it was still a little dark,[8] he recognized it to be his uncle, accused-appellant.[9] While standing only five (5) meters away,[10] accused-appellant asked him: "Toy, is there
somebody fetching water?"[11] He responded in the negative. He noticed that the
forehead, t-shirt and hair of accused-appellant were stained with blood.[12] He also noticed that accused-appellant was carrying
a plastic bag[13] and had a bolo tucked in his pants.[14] Accused-appellant then walked away in a hurried
manner while repeatedly looking over his shoulders.[15] Later on in the day, he was informed by a certain
Emma about the death of their neighbor, Bonifacia Lasquite.[16] Because of this, he informed Roberto Lasquite, the
son of Bonifacia Lasquite, of his encounter with accused-appellant in the early
morning of the ill-fated day.[17]
The second witness presented by the
prosecution was Mario Vinculado. He testified that he has been a resident of
Brgy. Santa Cruz, Hilongos, Leyte, since his birth and, as such, he knows both
accused-appellant and the victim.[18] Sometime in the second week of August of 1995, he
went to Ampayon, Butuan City together with a police officer named Lumayno from
the Hilongos Police Station.[19] He went to the said town because he was requested by
Roberto Lasquite to accompany police officer Lumayno in ascertaining whether
accused-appellant was indeed in Ampayon pursuant to an information sent by the
Butuan Police Station to the Hilongos Police Station.[20] When they arrived in Ampayon, they went to the
municipal jail where they found accused-appellant being investigated by the
police.[21] After the investigation, accused-appellant asked
Mario Vinculado if they could have a talk.[22] During their conversation, accused-appellant
informed Mario Vinculado that he had a companion when he assaulted Bonifacia
Lasquite[23] and that he was only able to stab the victim twice
in the breast.[24] Upon Mario Vinculado's return to his hometown, he
informed the Hilongos police and Roberto Lasquite of the admission made to him
by accused-appellant. Jksm
The prosecution then presented Dr. Conrado
Abiera as its expert witness. He testified that on 23 April 1995, he conducted
an autopsy on the victim and, correspondingly, accomplished a gross autopsy
report.[25] The gross autopsy report reads: Chief
Name: BONIFACIA
FABON LASQUITE Age: 64 years old
Address: Brgy.
Sta. Cruz, Hilongos, Leyte Sex: Female
Civil Status:
Widow
Occupation:
Housekeeper
Requesting
Officer: Jaime S. Yamba
Sr. Insp. PNP
Acting Chief of
Police
Date & Time of
Autopsy: April 23, 1995 at 2:10 p.m.
Place of Autopsy:
Brgy. Sta. Cruz, Hilongos, Leyte
General Survey:
Fairly build (sic), fairly nourished, fairly developed, whole body covered with
with (sic) blanket, when removed the face is (sic) covered with moist, torned
(sic) cloth the upper half of the body covered with cloth and lower half naked,
in the state of cadaveric spasm with hematoma formation on the jaw and base of
the neck, lacerated wound on the forehead, stabbed (sic) wound on the anterior
chest wall and multiple hematoma formation on the anterior chest wall.
Pertinent
Findings:
1. Lacerated wound
on (R) side of the forehead about 0.5 cm. x 0.2 cm. with a depressed skull
fracture.
2. Stabbed (sic)
wound (punctured-like) at the (R) side of epigastric area.
3. Stabbed (sic)
wound (punctured-like) at the 3rd intercostal space (L) parasternal line.
4. Depressed
fracture (L) parieto-occipital area.
5. Hematoma
formation, lower jaw and at the base of the neck.
6. Multiple
hematoma formation at the epigastric area, RUQ and anterior chest wall.
7. Hematoma
formation noted on both sides of vaginal canal and near the urethral opening.
8. Hematoma
formation (L) hand, dorsal aspect of metacarpo-phalangeal joint.
9. Tongue
half-bitten and directed to the right side.
Cause of Death:
Internal Hemorrhage due to stabbed (sic) wound at the heart and liver area.
Suffocation
secondary to strangulation.
(signed)
DR. CONRADO B.
ABIERA III
Medical Officer
III[26]
During his testimony, Dr. Abiera clarified
the statements he made in the gross autopsy report. He stated that lacerated
wound in the victim's forehead and the depressed skull fracture, reported as
the first item under the heading Pertinent Findings, signified that the victim
was hit with a blunt instrument which could have been a stone, a piece of wood
or the back portion of a bolo.[27] He added that the same blunt instrument may have
also been used in the depressed fracture in the parieto-occipital area.[28] Dr. Abiera also explained that the punctured-like
stab wounds, reported as the second and third items under the heading Pertinent
Findings, meant that the assailant used an instrument similarly shaped as an
ice pick or a sharpened welding rod.[29] With regard to the hematoma formation at the lower
jaw and at the base of the neck, reported as the fifth item above, this
signifies that the victim was strangled.[30] Dr. Abiera added that the strangulation of the
victim caused her to struggle for air and, in the process, she probably bit her
tongue which, thus, accounts for the finding in the ninth item above.[31] He concluded that this strangulation could not have
been caused by a wire or a rope since these instruments would have left marks
in the neck of the victim. In his expert opinion, Dr. Abiera deduced that the
victim was strangled through the use of a handkerchief or some other piece of
cloth.[32] With regard to the hematoma formation in the vaginal
canal and near the urethral opening, the seventh item above, he explained that
this could mean that the victim was raped.[33] However, he clarified that he cannot assert such
conclusion with certainty because he did not examine if there were sperm cells
in the victim's vagina since the autopsy was conducted in a barrio where there
was no laboratory.[34] Looking at the gross autopsy report in its entirety,
Dr. Abiera concluded that the assault on the victim could have been done by
more than one assailant considering that three devices were used in attacking
the victim, i.e., a blunt object, an ice-pick like tool and a cloth-like
instrument. On the aspect of mutilation, Dr. Abiera stated that no vital part
of the victim's body was severed which, thus, negates mutilation.[35]
The fourth and final witness for the
prosecution was the son of the victim, Roberto Lasquite. He testified that on
22 April 1995, he went with a friend to Sitio Panas, Brgy. Bilibol, Southern
Leyte, to attend a fiesta.[36] He stayed in the said place until the following day.
On 23 April 1995, at around ten o'clock in the morning, a certain Costan Taping
informed him that his mother was dead.[37] He immediately went home together with Costan Taping
and his fiancee and arrived at their house at noon of the same day.[38] He found his mother lying dead on the kitchen floor
with their things scattered.[39] When he searched for the shell where they kept their
money, it was no longer in its hiding place in their cabinet.[40] Inside the missing shell was the Twenty Five
Thousand Pesos (P25,000.00) that was sent to them by the victim's sister who
lives in Denmark.[41] Later on in the day, Benjamin Milano informed him of
his encounter with accused-appellant while he was fetching water.[42] Because of this, he and the barangay tanods looked
for accused-appellant.[43] They searched for accused-appellant for more than a
month but could not find him.[44] He only learned about the whereabouts of his
mother's assailant when he was informed by police officer Lumayno that
accused-appellant had been arrested in Butuan City.[45] Roberto Lasquite then went to their councilor, Mario
Vinculado, to request the latter to go to Butuan City and confirm if
accused-appellant indeed killed his mother. Esm
In his defense, accused-appellant took the
witness stand and denied the accusations against him. He testified that he was
registered as a resident of Brgy. Bliss but he actually resides in the house of
his brother in Brgy. Sta. Cruz,[46] which is around 380 meters away from the house of
Bonifacia Lasquite, her aunt.[47] He stated that in the morning of 22 April 1999, he
was with his live-in partner, Prima Naul, washing clothes since they were
preparing to leave for Butuan City the following day[48] in order to look for her live-in partner's long lost
father.[49] At noon of the same day, he and Prima Naul went to
his mother's house to have lunch.[50] They left his mother's house at around one o’clock
in the afternoon and returned to their house.[51] He turned in for bed at around nine o'clock in the
evening and woke up at 5:30 a.m. the following day, 23 April 1995.[52] He then prepared their provisions for their Butuan
trip and finished at around 8:00 a.m.[53] Thereafter, he went to the house of the Brgy.
Captain of Brgy. Bliss to get a residence certificate.[54] He was informed by the Brgy. Captain that he can get
his residence certificate from the Brgy. Secretary, Mrs. Lumayno.[55] He went to the house of Mrs. Lumayno and was able to
get a residence certificate.[56] He and his live-in partner then proceeded to Butuan
City and arrived thereat in the morning of the following day.[57] During their stay in Butuan City, they were unable
to locate her live-in partner's father. When inquired upon with regard to the
testimony of Benjamin Milano, accused-appellant denied that he saw the child in
the morning of 23 April 1995. On cross-examination, accused-appellant testified
that he does not know of any reason why Benjamin Milano testified the way he
did.[58] He also admitted having seen Mario Vinculado in the
police station while he was incarcerated and being investigated in Butuan City
on account of another charge for robbery.[59] Despite his having seen Mario Vinculado, he denies
having spoken with the latter and that he admitted to killing the victim.[60] He reasoned that he was unable to speak with Mario
Vinculado since he was being investigated by the police.[61] He also stated that when he left for Butuan City, he
was not aware that Bonifacia Lasquite was dead.[62] He, however, admitted that while he was in Butuan
City, he was informed by a certain Citas about the killing of the victim and
that he was being made responsible for the same.[63] Nevertheless, despite learning of this matter, he
admitted not having exerted any effort to inform Roberto Lasquite of his
innocence and justified his complacency with the excuse that he had differences
with Roberto Lasquite.[64] Their differences arose sometime in 1992 when he was
accused by Roberto Lasquite of having stabbed the latter's carabao.[65] Accused-appellant also admitted having escaped from
prison during the pendency of the present case before the lower court.[66] He was, however, recaptured by prison guards for
which he suffered a gunshot wound.[67] When asked why he escaped, accused-appellant
reasoned that his decision to escape was due to the fact that he was denied his
conjugal visits by prison authorities since Prima Naul was only his live-in
partner.[68]
The second and last witness presented by the
defense was Remedios Lumayno, the secretary of the barangay who issued
accused-appellant's residence certificate.[69] She corroborated the testimony of accused-appellant
that the latter obtained a residence certificate from her on 23 April 1995 at
around eight o'clock in the morning.[70] She also stated that when accused-appellant secured
his residence certificate, the latter explained to her that he was going to use
it for his trip to Marangog where he will harvest coconut.[71]
In its Decision, dated 15 December 1997, the
lower court convicted accused-appellant of the crime of robbery with homicide
and rape aggravated by dwelling. The pertinent portion of the decision reads: Esmsc
There having been
sufficient and convincing evidence by the prosecution, the court finds and so
holds the accused liable for robbery with homicide and rape as charged. Robbery
with Homicide is defined and penalized under Article 294, number 1 of the
Revised Penal Code, as amended by R.A. 7659 with 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. The homicide committed by the
accused on the occasion of the robbery of victim Bonifacia Lasquite was
perpetrated inside her home. Consequently, the aggravating circumstance of
dwelling should be appreciated to maximize the penalty.
WHEREFORE,
premises considered, the Court finds the accused LOCSIN FABON, alias
"Loklok" GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of Robbery with
Homicide and Rape, penalized under Article 294, number 1 of the Revised Penal Code,
as amended by R.A. 7659 and there being aggravating and no mitigating
circumstance hereby SENTENCES him to suffer the maximum penalty of DEATH.
In addition, the
accused is ordered to pay the heirs of the victim Bonifacia Lasquite the
following sums: Esmmis
a. P50,000.00 as
indemnity for Bonifacia lasquite's death;
b. To pay the sum
of P25,000.00 by way of reparation of the stolen cash money.
Cost taxed against
the accused.
SO ORDERED.[72]
The case is now before us on automatic
review pursuant to Section 10 of Rule 122.
Parenthetically, we note that the trial
court inaccurately designated the crime committed as "robbery with
homicide and rape."[73] When the special complex crime of robbery with
homicide is accompanied by another offense like rape or intentional mutilation,
such additional offense is treated as an aggravating circumstance which would
result in the imposition of the maximum penalty of death.[74] In the case of People vs. Lascuna,[75] we said: Esmso
We agree with the
Solicitor General's observation that the crime committed was erroneously
designated as robbery with homicide, rape and physical injuries. The proper
designation is robbery with homicide aggravated by rape. When rape and homicide
co-exist in the commission of robbery, it is the first paragraph of Article 294
of the Revised Penal Code which applies, the rape to be considered as an
aggravating circumstance. xxx[76]
We now come to the merits of the case. Msesm
The core issue the instant case is whether
the circumstantial evidence on record forms an unbroken chain which leads to
the conclusion that accused-appellant committed the crime for which he is being
made accountable for, to the exclusion of all others. Circumstantial evidence is
defined as that which indirectly proves a fact in issue.[77] Under Section 4 of Rule 133 of the Revised Rules on
Evidence, circumstantial evidence is sufficient to convict an accused if the
following requisites concur: (a) there is more than one circumstance; (b) the
facts from which the inferences are derived are proven; and (c) the combination
of all the circumstances is such as to produce a conviction beyond reasonable
doubt.
The peculiarity of circumstantial evidence
is that the guilt of the accused cannot be deduced from scrutinizing just one
particular piece of evidence. It is more like a puzzle which, when put
together, reveals a convincing picture pointing towards the conclusion that the
accused is the author of the crime. Exsm
In the case at bar, the circumstantial
evidence presented by the prosecution clearly establishes the guilt of
accused-appellant and overpowers his defense of denial and alibi. Aside from
the fact that denial and alibi are inherently weak defenses,
accused-appellant's alibi of being in his house at 5:30 in the morning does not
preclude his physical presence in the house of the victim considering that
their respective residences are only 380 meters apart. Moreover, the proven
circumstances in the instant case, when viewed in their entirety, are as
convincing as direct evidence and, as such, negate the innocence of
accused-appellant, to wit: (1) accused-appellant was present at the scene of
the crime; (2) he had blood stains on his body and clothes, had a bolo tucked
in his waist and was carrying a plastic bag when he was seen leaving the scene
of the crime; (3) he left Brgy. Sta. Cruz for Butuan City on the same day when
the victim was killed; (4) he admitted to Mario Vinculado that he kill the
victim; (5) he did not even bother to inform Roberto Lasquite of his alleged
innocence despite having learned that he was being made accountable for the
death of Bonifacia Lasquite; (6) he could not think of any reason as to why
Benjamin Milano, his nephew, would lie in testifying against him; and (7) he
escaped from incarceration during the pendency of this case before the lower
court. Clearly, the foregoing evidence is consistent with the culpability of
the accused and inconsistent with his defense of denial and alibi. Not the
least worthy of notice is the fact that accused-appellant twice sought to
escape liability: first, on the day that the victim was killed and second,
while he was incarcerated in prison. As has often been repeated, flight is a
strong indication of guilt.[78] The reasons put forward by accused-appellant to
justify the two instances when he fled, i.e., first, to look for his
live-in partner's long lost father and second, because he was denied conjugal
visits, are simply too lame and whimsical to merit credibility. Moreover, if the
purpose of his trip to Butuan City was to look for his live-in partner's
father, why did he not return immediately to Brgy. Sta. Cruz after he and his
live-in partner failed to locate the whereabouts of the said father? The only
logical reason would be that he was avoiding something in Brgy. Sta. Cruz.
However, despite his efforts to escape from the long arm of the law, it still
caught up with him in Butuan City. Kyle
In the appreciation of evidence in criminal
cases, it is a basic tenet that the prosecution has the burden of proof in
establishing the guilt of the accused for all the offenses he is charged with -
ei incumbit probatio non qui negat.[79] The
conviction of accused-appellant must rest not on the weakness of his defense
but on the strength of the prosecution's evidence. In the present case, it is
the opinion of the Court that although the prosecution has sufficiently
established accused-appellant's guilt for the crime of robbery with homicide,
it has, however, failed to substantiate the alleged aggravating circumstances
of rape and intentional mutilation. As testified upon by the prosecution's
expert witness, Dr. Abiera, it cannot be conclusively stated that the victim
was raped. Due to the fact that the entirety of the evidence presented in this
case are all circumstantial, the fact that the victim was no longer wearing her
underwear when her cadaver was discovered and that the victim had hematoma
formations on both sides of vaginal canal and near the urethral opening cannot
conclusively prove that she was raped. Moreover, the aggravating circumstance
of intentional mutilation cannot also be appreciated since, as also testified
upon by Dr. Abiera, no vital body part was severed. Likewise, the fact that the
victim's tongue was half-bitten does not prove intentional mutilation since it
could have been caused by the victim herself when she was fighting to breathe
for air while she was being strangled by accused-appellant. Kycalr
However, despite our finding that accused-appellant
cannot be made liable for the aggravating circumstances of rape and intentional
mutilation, a finding which would have lowered the penalty in the instant case
to reclusion perpetua, accused-appellant will still have to
suffer the supreme penalty of death due to the attendance of the aggravating
circumstance of dwelling[80] which was alleged in the information and duly proven
during the trial. Dwelling is considered aggravating primarily because of the
sanctity of privacy that the law accords to the human abode.[81] In People vs. Cabato,[82] we ruled
that: "Dwelling is aggravating in robbery with violence or intimidation
because this class of robbery can be committed without the necessity of
trespassing the sanctity of the offended party's house."[83]
The penalty for robbery with homicide is reclusion
perpetua to death which is composed of two (2) indivisible penalties.
Applying Article 63 of the Revised Penal Code, the imposable penalty in the
present case is death due to the presence of the aggravating circumstance of
dwelling and the absence of any mitigating circumstance.
Although four Justices continue to maintain
that Republic Act No. 7659, insofar as it imposes the death penalty, is
unconstitutional, they nevertheless submit to the ruling of the majority that
the law is constitutional and that the death penalty should accordingly be
imposed.
Calrky
IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING, the Court finds the accused Locsin Fabon, alias
"Loklok," guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of
"robbery with homicide" under Article 294 (1) of the Revised Penal
Code, as amended by Republic Act No. 7659,[84] with the aggravating circumstance of dwelling, and
hereby sentences the said accused to suffer the supreme penalty of death, to
indemnify the heirs of Bonifacia Lasquite in the amount of Fifty Thousand Pesos
(P50,000.00) and to pay Twenty Five Thousand Pesos (P25,000.00)
as actual damages for the stolen money.
In accordance with Section 25 of Republic
Act No. 7659, amending Article 83 of the Revised Penal Code, upon finality of
this decision, let copies of the records of this case be forthwith forwarded to
the Office of the President of the Philippines for possible exercise of
clemency or pardoning power. Mesm
SO ORDERED.
Davide, Jr., C.J., Bellosillo, Melo,
Puno, Vitug, Kapunan, Mendoza, Panganiban, Quisumbing, Purisima, Pardo,
Gonzaga-Reyes, Ynares-Santiago, and
De Leon, Jr., JJ., concur.
Buena, J., on leave.
[1] Records, pp. 236.
[2] Id., at 38-39.
[3] Id., at 47.
[4] TSN, 28 November 1995, p. 9.
[5] Id., at 12.
[6] Id., at 6.
[7] Id., at 7.
[8] Id., at 12.
[9] Id.
[10] TSN, 28 November 1995, p. 20.
[11] Id., at 7.
[12] Id., at 8-9.
[13] Id., at 7.
[14] Id., at 9.
[15] Id., at 7.
[16] Id. at 10.
[17] Id. at 10-11.
[18] TSN, 22 January 1996, p. 4.
[19] Id., at 6.
[20] Id., at 6-8.
[21] Id., at 10.
[22] Id., at 14.
[23] Id., at 16.
[24] Id., at 15.
[25] TSN, 12 December 1996, p. 4.
[26] Exhibit "A," Records, p. 7.
[27] Supra, note 25 at 6-7.
[28] Id., at 7.
[29] Id., at 5, 7.
[30] Id., at 8.
[31] Id., at 16.
[32] Id., at 13-14.
[33] Id., at 15.
[34] Id., at 17.
[35] Id., at 15.
[36] TSN, 23 January 1997, p. 6.
[37] Id., at 7.
[38] Id., at 7-8.
[39] Id., at 8.
[40] Id., at 8-9.
[41] Id., at 9-10.
[42] Id., at 10.
[43] Id., at 11.
[44] Id., at 12-13
[45] Id., at 13.
[46] TSN, 7 May 1997, p. 5.
[47] Id., at 13.
[48] Id., at 6-7.
[49] Id., at 23.
[50] Id., at 7.
[51] Id.
[52] TSN, 7 May 1997, p. 8.
[53] Ibid.
[54] Id., at 9.
[55] Id., at 10.
[56] Id., at 9.
[57] Id., at 11.
[58] Id., at 18-19.
[59] Id., at 19.
[60] Id., at 19-20.
[61] Id., at 20.
[62] Id., at 22.
[63] Id., at 32.
[64] Id., at 32-33.
[65] Id., at 33-34.
[66] Id., at 27.
[67] Ibid; Records, Prison Guard Report, p. 97.
[68] Id., at 28-29.
[69] TSN, 22 July 1997, p. 4.
[70] Id., at 7.
[71] Ibid.
[72] Records, Decision, p. 243.
[73] Ibid.
[74] ART.
294. Robbery with violence against or intimidation of persons - Penalties.-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.
xxx
[75] 225 SCRA 386 (1993).
[76] Id., at 404 (italics supplied).
[77] People vs. Caparas, 290 SCRA 78 (1998); People
vs. Andal, 279 SCRA 474 (1997).
[78] People vs. Guarin, G.R. No. 125964, 22 October
1999; People vs. Sanchez, G.R. No. 118423, 16 June 1999; People vs.
Tidula, 292 SCRA 596 (1998).
[79] People vs. Masalihit, 300 SCRA 147 (1998);
People vs. Olivarez, 299 SCRA 635 (1998). December 1998.
[80] Art. 14 (3), Revised Penal Code.
[81] People vs. Paraiso, G.R. No. 127840, 29
November 1999.
[82] 160 SCRA 98 (1988).
[83] Id. at 110.
[84] See note 74.