FIRST DIVISION
[G.R. No. 131773.
PEOPLE OF THE
D E C I S I O N
YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.:
On appeal is the decision of the Regional Trial Court of Pasay City, Branch 109, in Criminal Case No. 97-9779, promulgated on November 12, 1997, finding accused-appellants guilty beyond reasonable doubt of violation of Section 15,[1] Article III, of the Dangerous Drugs Act of 1972 (Republic Act 6425), as amended by Republic Act 7659, sentencing them to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua and ordering them to pay a fine of P500,000.00 each. The dispositive portion of the decision reads:
IN VIEW OF ALL THE FOREGOING, the court hereby finds all accused namely Anabel Villanueva y Dinaca aka Marivic Baylon y Velarde, Luzviminda Santos y Rea and Malou Vasquez y Santos guilty beyond reasonable doubt for violation of Section 15, Art. III of RA 6425 as amended by RA 7659. The subject buy bust being 474.4 grams of methamphetamine hydrochloride hereby sentences them to Reclusion Perpetua or forty (40) Years imprisonment and to pay a fine of P500,000.00 each.
The methamphetamine hydrochloride is hereby forfeited in favor of
the government and the OIC of this court is hereby directed to transmit the
same to the National Bureau of Investigation and/or Dangerous Drugs Board for
proper disposition.[2]
Accused-appellants were charged under the following amended information:
That at or about 6:00 o’clock in the morning of February 4, 1997 at
No. 1754 Tripia de Galina,[3] Pasay City, and
within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused
grouping [themselves] together conspiring, confederating and mutually helping
one another, did then and there, wilfully, unlawfully
and feloniously transport, sell and deliver, to a buyer without authority of
law approximately FOUR HUNDRED SEVENTY-FOUR POINT FOUR (474.4) grams of
methamphetamine hydrochloride popularly known as “shabu”,
a regulated drug.
CONTRARY TO LAW.[4]
When accused-appellants were arrested, one of them gave the name Anabel Villanueva.
In the course of the proceedings, however, her counsel requested that
her name be changed to Marivic Baylon
y Velarde, allegedly her real name. The trial court ordered that both names of
accused-appellant be included.[5]
Upon arraignment on
The facts as presented by the prosecution are summarized by the Solicitor General in its Consolidated Brief for the Appellee, to wit:
Receiving report from their informant about the drug trafficking
activities of appellant Anabel Villanueva in
During the negotiations, agent Soriano
was informed of the mode of payment, and the time and place of the delivery (
Agent Soriano was told to come back on February 3, 1997 about 6:00 A.M. at the house of appellants Luzviminda and Malou at 7659 Tramo Street, Pasay City, which the former did (p. 10, Id; p. 11, TSN, March 12, 1997).
Appellants Luzviminda and Malou still insisted that appellant Anabel
Villanueva will not give the “shabu” to them unless
he give them first the money. To win
them, agent Soriano countered that he will give
appellants Luzviminda and Malou
Fifty Thousand Pesos as their bonus or commission money and made the promise
that he will make a repeat order of two (2) kilos every week. Agent Soriano then
handed to them Two Thousand Pesos (P2,000.00) as advance to convince appellant Anabel Villanueva of a cash on delivery (COD) transaction
(pp. 10, 11, 15 and 16, TSN,
Forthwith, at about
Tired of haggling with them, agent Soriano
told them in the vernacular, “Sige na ako na
ang bahala sa inyo. Tulungan
lang ninyo akong matapos na
ang transacstion ito. Kasi pagod na
ako. Heto na ang
P50,000.00 na ibibigay ko sa inyo
bilang commission ninyo. Pilitin ninyo si Anabel
na pumayag ng kaliwaan.” (pp. 16 & 17,
TSN,
At
By and by, appellant Anabel Villanueva came out from one of the rooms holding one big Tide carton box (p. 24, TSN, March 17, 1997). Appellant Anabel Villanueva walked towards them and said, “Kumusta ka, saan mo sinisestema ito,” and handed over the Tide carton box to appellant Luzviminda (pp. 24-26, Ibid.). Appellant Luzviminda handed over the Tide carton box to agent Soriano and the latter opened the box; he saw one big plastic containing white crystalline substance (p. 14, TSN, March 12, 1997). Agent Soriano then handed over to appellant Luzviminda two (2) bundles of money worth One Hundred Twenty Five Thousand Pesos (P125,000.00) each. Appellants Anabel Villanueva, Luzviminda and Malou counted the money segregating it to Ten Thousand Pesos (P10,000.00) per bundle (p. 15, TSN, March 12, 1997; pp. 26 & 27, TSN, March 17, 1997).
Agent Soriano forthwith pressed the
button of his transmitter attached and hidden at his chest alerting the other
members of the buy-bust team who immediately ran up to the stairs (
The result of the examination conducted by the NBI Forensic Division on the contents of the plastic bag found inside the Tide carton box revealed that the white crystalline granules/substance weighing 474.4 grams is indeed methamphetamine hydrochloride or “shabu” (p. 16, TSN, March 12, 1997).
Appellants were likewise fingerprinted and their hands examined for
the presence of fluorescent powder. The
results revealed that appellants’ hands were positive of fluorescent powder
specks and smudges (pp. 6, 7, 20, 21, and 22, TSN,
The version of the defense, as testified[8] to by accused-appellant Anabel Villanueva, is as follows:
At about
Agent
The events that led to the arrest of accused-appellant Villanueva
were narrated by defense witness SPO3 Reynaldo Jimenez in this wise:[9]
At about 8:00 o’clock to 8:30 o’clock in the morning of
From
On the ground floor, Agent Palencia held accused-appellant Villanueva, while two men whose names were not known to SPO3 Jimenez searched the house. The search of the ground floor proved futile, so one of the NBI agents proceeded to the second floor and forcibly opened the door. Agent Soriano, SPO3 Jimenez, and Barangay Captain Rillo followed upstairs. Again, the NBI agents found no illegal drugs. Before the team left, Agent Soriano told SPO3 Jimenez, “Pare, tulungan mo na lang ito and informed (sic) his (sic) family na dadalhin namin sa headquarters ito, for further investigation.” According to SPO3 Palencia, he did not see accused-appellants Luzviminda Santos and Malou Vasquez during the arrest of accused-appellant Villanueva.
Culled from the testimony of defense witness, Barangay
Captain Alfredo Rillo, are the following facts:[10]
Barangay Captain Alfredo Rillo went to
From the testimonies of accused-appellants Luzviminda
Santos[11]
and Malou Vasquez,[12]
it appears that: at around 3:00 a.m. of February 4, 1997, a man who pretended
to be a drug dealer, later identified to be Agent Soriano,
together with a certain Karla, accompanied by two other male persons, went to
the house of accused-appellant Luzviminda Santos at
1754 Tripa Galina, Tramo, Pasay City, and told the
latter that a reward of P50,000.00 would be given to her if she could find a
supplier of shabu.
Enticed by the reward, accused-appellant Vasquez, daughter of
accused-appellant
On
THE HONORABLE REGIONAL TRIAL COURT
COMMITTED GRAVE ERROR IN CONVICTING ACCUSED-APPELLANTS SANTOS AND VASQUEZ
DESPITE CLEAR EVIDENCE OF INSTIGATION EMPLOYED BY THE NBI AGENTS ON THEM.[13]
Accused-appellant Anabel Villanueva a.k.a. Marivic Baylon also appealed. She claims that the trial court erred –
IN RELYING COMPLETELY UPON THE TESTIMONY OF THE SOLE WITNESS, POSEUR BUYER AND NBI AGENT MARTIN SORIANO, WHO IS NOT A CREDIBLE WITNESS;
IN FAILING TO CONSIDER THE EXISTENCE OF INDUCEMENT OR INSTIGATION;
IN FINDING THAT THERE WAS A BUY BUST OPERATION, IN ITS APPRECIATION OF THE PRESENCE OF FLUORESCENT POWDER IN “CERTAIN” PORTIONS OF THE HANDS OF THE ACCUSED, AND IN FINDING THAT THE ACCUSED WERE CAUGHT EN FLAGRANTE DELICTO;
IN IGNORING SERIOUS LAPSES IN THE PROSECUTION’S EVIDENCE;
IN DEMEANING THE EVIDENCE OF THE ACCUSED.[14]
The issue boils down to the credibility of the prosecution witnesses.
Well entrenched is the rule that an appellate court will
generally not disturb the assessment of the trial court on matters of
credibility, considering that the latter was in a better position to appreciate
the same, having heard and observed the witnesses themselves and observed their
deportment as well as their manner of testifying during the trial. The only exception is when the trial court
has plainly overlooked certain facts of substance and value which, if
considered, may affect the result of the case, or in instances where the
evidence fails to support or substantiate the lower court’s findings of fact
and conclusions, or where the disputed decision is based on a misapprehension
of facts.[15]
The case at bar falls under the exceptions.
The Court has extensively reviewed the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses and found the same to be riddled with inconsistencies. On direct examination, agent Soriano categorically said that the Tide carton box containing shabu was given to him by accused-appellant Villanueva to whom he specifically handed the two bundles of buy bust money, after looking at the contents of the Tide carton box.
Fiscal Barrera:
x x x x x x x x x
Q: What happened when this Anabel Villanueva emerged from one of the rooms at the second floor of the house of these Luzviminda Santos and Malou Vasquez?
A: She handed over to me one (1) big box of Tide soap.
Q: Who were present when this Anabel handed to you a Tide box soap?
A: Anabel, Luzviminda and Malou were there together with my informant.
x x x x x x x x x
Q: You mentioned these two bundles which you handed to them were marked money?
A: Yes, sir.
Q: How did you mark these two bundles?
A: There was a request from our forensic chemist we had it dusted with fluorescent powder.
Q: To whom did you specifically hand these two bundles?
A: To Anabel
Villanueva.[16]
On cross-examination, however, agent Soriano declared that it was accused-appellant Luzviminda Santos who gave him the Tide carton box containing shabu, and it was also she who received the two bundles of buy bust money –
Atty. Nogales:
x x x x x x x x x
Q: In this particular case the shabu was delivered by Anabel to Luzviminda and Malou and these two delivered to you?
A: It was handed to me inside the room by Luzviminda.
Q: Which one?
A: The old lady.
Court:
Q: Which one was handed to you?
A: The Tide carton box was
handed by Anabel to Luzviminda
and Luzviminda handed over to me.[17]
x x x x x x x x x
Q: When she came out of the room before the handing of the box, she already notice you, is it not?
A: Yes, sir. It was like this: when she came out of the room at the same time she was walking towards us. She was already lending her hand with the Tide box.
Q: To Luzviminda?
A: To Luzviminda.
Q: That time she looked at you?
A: That time she started saying “kumusta ka.”
Q: She saw your companion, the informant?
A: Yes, sir.
Q: And then Luzviminda took the box?
A: Yes, sir.
Q: And then gave it to you?
A: Yes, sir.
Q: And you gave the money to Luzviminda?
A: Yes, sir. I gave Luzviminda
in two bundles of money of One Hundred Twenty five thousand pesos each.[18]
So also, as testified by Agent Soriano,
on January 27, 1997, they received intelligence report that a certain Anabel Villanueva of Tramo
Street, Pasay City was involved in drug trafficking.[19]
The receipt of said information is likewise stated in the
The foregoing testimony and documentary evidence was explicitly contradicted by the leader of the NBI team, Agent Palencia, on the issue of when for the first time they learn the name of the three accused-appellants -
Fiscal Barrera:
By the way, when for the first
time did you come to know the names of these three persons you arrested during
your buy bust operation at Tripa de Gallina,
A: Right after they filled up the booking sheet and arrest report.
Q: Already at the NBI?
A: Yes, sir.
x x x
x x x x
x x.[25]
Atty. Nogales:
Agent
A: Yes, sir.
Atty. Nogales:
Which means before the buy bust arrest you did not know their names?
A: Yes, sir.
Q: Neither did any of your team member knew their names, is it not?
A: Yes, sir, only a certain Anabel, that’s the only name we know. No complete names.
Q: No family names?
A: Yes, sir.
Q: So, you and the other members of the team only knew the name of Anabel, no family name?
A: Yes.
Q: And the name of Luzviminda Santos and Malou Vasquez were not known to the other team members before the buy bust arrest?
A: Yes, sir.
Q: Only also at the NBI office?
A: Yes, sir.
Court:
You mean the other members did not know the names of Luzviminda Santos and Malou Vasquez?
A: Before the operation they do not know their exact names, only the first name.
Atty. Nogales:
With due respect. May I manifest for the record in fairness to my client, the Court has asked leading questions to this witness.
Court:
No. I have to clarify his answer. I am allowed to ask questions to know the truth.
Atty. Nogales:
No offense. So you are now changing your answer. A while ago you answered, if you and other team members did not know the names of these Malou and Luzviminda when they were brought to the headquarters and you said, yes, and when the court asked you if you knew at least their first name, you said, yes. You are changing my [your] answer.
A: I am not changing my answer.
Court:
Go to another point.[26]
Confronted with his previous testimony Agent Palencia testified, thus:
Atty. Nogales:
Now let us test your accuracy about it. Do you recall last time having testified that it was only at the time after the buy bust arrest of these three that you learn their names. Do you recall having said that?
A: Only the names of Malou Santos and Luzviminda Santos are known after the buy bust operation.
Atty. Nogales:
Meaning before the arrest you did not know their names?
A: Yes, sir.
Atty. Nogales:
None among your team knew them?
A: Yes, sir
Q: You also said you did not know the name of Anabel Villanueva until after the arrest, only you change it by saying you knew the first name is it not?
Court: Before the arrest do you know the name of Anabel Villanueva?
A: Yes, sir.
Atty. Nogales:
Let us test your memory now
because I have your testimony in writing.
I am referring you to page 40 of the transcript of your testimony last
July 2, 1997 and I quote: “Is it correct to say that the first time you learn
about the activities of the suspect... I withdraw that. In relation to the question of the prosecutor,
Fiscsal Barrera, I am quoting page 21 of your
testimony, transcript of
“Fiscal Barrera: By the way, when for the first time did you come to know the names of these three persons you arrested during your buy bust operation at Tripa de Gallina?” Answer: “right after they filled up the booking sheet and arrest report.” Question: “Already at the NBI?” Answer: “Yes, sir”.
Atty. Nogales: (cont’n)
Do you remember having asked those questions and given those answers?
A: Yes sir.
Atty. Nogales:
And that is correct, is or not?
A: It is included in the transcript.
Q: It is correct because of that?
A: Yes, sir.
Q: Now why is it in Exh. S-2 [Deposition Form signed by Agents Palencia and Soriano] the name Anabel Villanueva appears? This Exh. S-2 is dated January 27. They were arrested February 4. You said you learned the names of these three on February 4. Why is it the name is listed in Exh. S-2 dated January 27?
A: Actually, sir, I decided I should not present this before the court, that’s why.
Court: What is true now, you know their names or you don’t know their names before their arrest?
A: I know their names.
Court: What is the true and correct answer?
A: I know their names.
Court: Why did you say you did not know their names?
A: Only Malou Santos and Luzviminda Santos.
Court: So, you knew Anabel Villanueva before that?
A: Yes, sir. That Anabel Villanueva is reasonably engaged in large scale trafficking.
Court: Are the names of the other two there?
A: No, your Honor.[27]
Moreover, it is doubtful if the NBI team indeed conducted the subject surveillance operations on accused-appellant Villanueva, considering that Agent Palencia, the team leader of the buy bust team, does not know the personal circumstances of accused-appellant Villanueva. In fact, he said that it was only at the time accused-appellant Villanueva was arrested that he came to see her in person:
Atty. Nogales:
x x x x x x x x x
Q: You had opportunity from the first time that this case was referred to you, to conduct surveillance of Anabel, is it not?
A: Yes, sir.
Q: Did you learn her address?
A: No.
Atty. Nogales:
You did not also learn where she live?
A: No.
Q: You did not know whether she was married or not?
A: No, sir.
Q: Whether she has children or not?
A: No.
Q: Whether she is single or not?
A: No.
Q: You do not know what kind of work she is doing?
A: What we know this Anabel Villanueva is a big time drug trafficker.
x x x x x x x x x
Q: As a matter of fact, it was only on February 4 that you saw the person of Anabel Villanueva?
A: After the buy bust operation.
Q: Also none of your team have seen Anabel until after the buy bust?
A: Yes, sir.
Q: You did not even apply for a search warrant of her house?
A: No sir.
Q: You did not even think of that?
A: Yes, sir.[28]
The Court also noted that Agent Soriano, who allegedly handed the buy bust money to accused-appellant Villanueva, had a difficulty in remembering her name, thus –
Atty. Nogales:
x x x x x x x x x
Q - I thought Luzviminda and Malou were not yet finished counting the money?
A - Everytime they finished counting bundles of ten thousand pesos each they automatically gave it to Malou.
Q - Point out to who?
A - To the one wearing orange.
Court: Why, you don’t even know the name of that one in orange?
A - I was so tired.
Q - You do not even know the name now?
A - I forgot.
Atty. Nogales:
Q - You do not know the name of the woman up to now?
A - I am sorry I have no sleep because of our previous operation.
Court:
Q - You are referring to your operation in this case?
A - No. We have an operation earlier this morning.
Atty. Nogales:
Q - You cannot tell who is Luzviminda here?
A - Luzviminda is the one wearing eyeglasses. Malou is the one wearing stripe shirt, and the other one....
Court:
Q - Suddenly your mind went blank when you have mentioned the name earlier?
A - Yes, Your Honor.
Atty. Nogales:
Q- What is your educational attainment?
A - I am a philosophy graduate.
Q - I thought all the time Malou is your original target, not Luzviminda or Anabel and yet you forgot the name?
Court:
Q - Who was your original target?
A - The one in orange.
Atty. Nogales:
Q - Despite the fact she is your principal suspect you don’t remember her name right now?
A - No.
Atty. Nogales:
Q - Also despite the fact that you conducted surveillance of that woman in orange shirt on February 1, 2, 3 and 4, at this point you don’t know her name?
A - No. Because of the pressure I had no sleep yet. I have just came from an operation and I have not take my breakfast and lunch, no merienda not even water. I just change from my uniform to my long sleeve.
Q - You are telling the Court despite the fact you have conducted surveillance operation of that woman in orange shirt, you cannot pointed where she was living, is it not?
A - Yes, sir.[29]
Inconsistency is likewise shown as to the place where
accused-appellants were arrested.
According to the prosecution, the three were arrested in the house of
accused-appellant
Furthermore, Agent Soriano gave conflicting testimonies anent the money used in the buy bust operation.[31] He declared that the P250,000.00 buy bust money is a government money. Later, he claimed that the money used in their operation was his personal money and that Exhibit “17”[32] is the reimbursement receipt of the said P250,000.00 advanced by him. It seems Soriano does not know what he is talking about because he later said that the P250,000.00 buy bust money stated in the receipt as a reimbursement to him, was returned by him to the Assistant Director right after the operation. Worse, he also stated that he deposited the P250,000.00 used in the operation at the BPI, Visayas Branch, savings account, in the name of Security System Specialist, a corporation. Per certification,[33] however, of the bank concerned, no such “account under the name of Security System Specialist, whether as a corporation or as a sole proprietorship,” exists “from the period February 1, 1997 up to the present [September 3, 1997].”
While it is true that conviction may lie even in the absence of a buy bust money, the inconsistencies in the testimony of Agent Soriano regarding the same goes into the veracity of the alleged buy bust operation.
Anent the fluorescent powder detected in the hands of
accused-appellants, prosecution witness Emilia Rosaldes, forensic chemist of the NBI who conducted the
laboratory examinations on accused-appellants testified that it is possible
that accused-appellant Villanueva did not handle the buy bust money and explained
further that in a scale of one to ten, ten being the highest, the rate of
specks and smudges of fluorescent powder in the hands of accused-appellants Anabel Villanueva and Malou
Vasquez is - one. And, while she gave
accused-appellant Luzviminda Santos a rating of six,
she said that the normal rate of smudges and specks found in the hands of a
suspect who handled marked money is seven to ten.[34]
Finally, the NBI agents cannot seek refuge on the presumption of
regularity in the performance of duty. The
NBI logbook presented by the prosecution does not show that the case of Anabel Villanueva was indeed assigned to the NBI agents
concerned.[35]
What is more, Atty. Max Salvador (Chief of Security Intelligence Division), the
officer pointed by Agents Soriano and
Atty. Nogales:
Q: I’m going to show you
what Soriano and
A: This is my routing slip
dated
Q: Whose signature is “S-1”? That is your signature?
A: Yes, sir.
Q: According to
A: This is not the authority.
Q: So that is not the said authority to conduct buy bust operation?
A: Yes, sir.
Q: And you have not signed
any authority with these people to conduct buy bust operation, January 16, up
to
A: As I said, I asked them to validate information.
Q: And did you sign any authority with these people?
A: I did not sign any authority.
Q: When you say you did not sign any written authority? There was no written authority?
A: That is it.[36]
x x x x x x x x x
Atty. Nogales:
x x x x x x x x x
Since according to you, you have
not authorized Soriano,
A: I don’t have any order for them, maybe the higher authority have order to conduct buy bust.
Q: They were pointing to you as the source of their authority. So as far as that is concerned, did you authorize or did you not?
A: I authorized them to gather information on the persons operating on illegal drugs. But in this particular case the propose buy bust operation prior to my knowledge and prior to the operation they breached our procedure.
Q: Atty. Salvador, just answer my question directly. As you also said, you don’t have any written or verbal operation in this particular case?
A: Yes, sir. (emphasis
supplied)[37]
Withal, it is evident that the prosecution failed to discharge its burden to overcome the constitutional presumption of innocence, and to establish accused-appellants’ guilt beyond reasonable doubt. From the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses, it can be gleaned that no surveillance operations occurred and that the NBI agents do not know and have not yet seen accused-appellant Villanueva prior to the arrest. The subject surveillance operations claimed by the prosecution is but an attempt to lay down a basis for the buy bust operations which the Court equally doubts.
As opposed to the indecisive, contradictory and conflicting
testimonies of the prosecution witnesses, it is the version of the defense
pieced together by the consistent, straightforward and complementary
testimonies of its witnesses that appears to be credible. The Court can not give credence to the
supposed buy bust operation that allegedly led to the arrest of the three
accused-appellants at the same time and in the same place in the residence of
accused-appellant
The fluorescent powder detected in the hands of accused-appellants, cannot give rise to their conviction. The Court is inclined to believe the testimony of the accused-appellants that somebody at the NBI surreptitiously placed fluorescent powder in their hands by holding the same after their arrest. Even the NBI chemist presented by the prosecution testified that it is possible that accused-appellant Villanueva did not handle the alleged buy bust money, contrary to the claim of Agent Soriano that he specifically handed the two bundles of buy bust money with sufficient fluorescent powder to accused-appellant Villanueva.[38] The same NBI chemist who said that in a scale of one to ten, ten being the highest, the normal rate of specks and smudges that would be detected in the hands of a person who held money with fluorescent powder, would be seven to ten, gave accused-appellants Vasquez and Santos a rating of only one and six, respectively.
Under our laws, the onus probandi
in establishing the guilt of an accused for a criminal offense lies with the
prosecution. The burden must be
discharged by it on the strength of its own evidence and not on the weakness of
the evidence for the defense or lack of it.
Proof beyond reasonable doubt, or that quantum of proof sufficient to produce
a moral certainty that would convince and satisfy the conscience of those who
are to act in judgment, is indispensable to overcome the constitutional
presumption of innocence.[39]
In the case at bar, we cannot rest easy in affirming the court a
quo’s judgment of conviction which, to our mind, is based on a sweeping
disregard of the issues raised by the defense, and on a bare declaration that
the guilt of herein accused-appellants has been proven beyond reasonable
doubt. When the circumstances are capable
of two or more inferences, as in the instant case, one of which is consistent
with the presumption of innocence while the other is compatible with guilt, the
presumption of innocence must prevail and the court must acquit. For it is better to acquit a guilty man than
to convict an innocent man.[40]
WHEREFORE, the decision of the Regional Trial Court of Pasay, Branch 109, in Criminal Case No. 97-9779 is REVERSED and SET ASIDE. Accused-appellants Anabel Villanueva y Dinaca a.k.a. Marivic Baylon y Velarde, Malou Vasquez y Santos and Luzviminda Santos y Rea, are ACQUITTED of the crime charged for lack of sufficient evidence to establish their guilt beyond reasonable doubt; and are ordered RELEASED unless they are detained for some other lawful cause.
SO ORDERED.
Davide, Jr., C.J., (Chairman), Puno, and Kapunan, JJ., concur.
[1] Section 15.
[2] Rollo,
pp. 63-64; penned by Judge Lilia C. Lopez.
[3] Sometimes spelled as
“Gallina” in the records.
[4] Records, Vol. I, p.
122.
[5] TSN,
[6] Records, Vol. I, pp.
140-142.
[7] Consolidated Brief
for the Appellee, Rollo,
pp. 271 - 276.
[8] TSN,
[9] TSN,
[10] TSN,
[11] TSN,
[12] TSN,
[13] Rollo,
p. 92.
[14] Rollo,
p. 131.
[15] People v. Limon, 306 SCRA 367,
372-373 [1999]; citing People v. Bawar, 262
SCRA 325 [1996]; and People v. Godoy, 250 SCRA
676 [1995].
[16] TSN,
[17] TSN,
[18]
[19] TSN,
[20] Exhibit “13”, Vol.
III, Records, p. 101.
[21] TSN,
[22] Exhibit “S-2”,
Records, Vol. III, p. 50.
[23] TSN,
[24] TSN,
[25] TSN,
[26] TSN,
[27] TSN,
[28] TSN,
[29] TSN,
[30] Records, Vol. III,
pp. 89, 92 and 95.
[31] TSN,
[32] Records, Vol. III,
p. 51.
[33] Exhibit “31”, Records, Volume III, p. 105.
[34] TSN,
[35] TSN,
[36] TSN,
[37] TSN,
[38] TSN,
[39] People v. Gomez, 270 SCRA 432,
444 [1997].
[40] People v. Gonzales, G.R. No. 106873,