FIRST DIVISION
[G.R. No. 125895.
July 4, 2002]
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee,
vs. ALEX RIVERA and ROGITO RIVERA, accused-appellants.
D E C I S I O N
YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.:
This is an
appeal from the decision dated January 22, 1996 of the Regional Trial Court, of
Masbate, Masbate, Branch 47, in Criminal Case No. 6547, convicting brothers
Alex and Rogito Rivera of two counts of murder and sentencing them as follows:
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the
guilt of the accused Alex Rivera and
Rogito Rivera having been established beyond reasonable doubt, each of them is
convicted of the crime of murder on two counts, for the deaths of Domingo Ramos
and Percelina Ramos and each is sentenced to suffer the penalty of Reclusion
Perpetua on two counts; to indemnify the heirs of the victims Domingo Ramos
and Percelina Ramos, jointly and severally, in the total sum of P100,000.00; to
suffer the accessory penalties therefor and to pay the costs of the suit.
The bond posted by accused Alex
Rivera, to secure his provisional liberty, is hereby ordered cancelled and the
bondsmen, relieved of their obligations appurtenant thereto.
IT IS SO ORDERED.[1]
The facts, as
culled from the records, are:
At 5:00 in the
afternoon of March 16, 1991, spouses Domingo and Percelina Ramos, together with
their seventeen year-old son, Jenny, were chatting with Erlinda Bagahilog in
front of the latter’s house in Barangay Bagacay, Mobo, Masbate. Their daughter, Soledad, was by the nearby
river washing clothes. Suddenly,
accused-appellants, the brothers Alex and Rogito Rivera, arrived. Armed with bolos, accused-appellants
approached Domingo and challenged him to a fight. Domingo, then in crutches, refused to fight saying that he had
done nothing wrong to the brothers.
Accused-appellants grabbed Domingo by his shirt collar and dragged him
towards the river. There, they took
turns in hacking and stabbing Domingo Ramos, while Percelina and Jenny pleaded
for them to stop. Soledad stood
motionless and could only cry.[2] Domingo
raised his hands in ultimate surrender and expired.
After killing
Domingo, accused-appellants turned towards Percelina and Jenny. Jenny was able to run to the house of
Honesto Bagahilog, where he hid. Alex
Rivera caught up with Percelina and hacked her as well.[3] Soledad,
who had recovered from her shock, threw a stone at Alex Rivera and hit him on
the head. Alex thus chased Soledad, who
ran towards the house of Rosario Bagahilog.
Accused-appellants then left the scene.[4]
When the coast
was clear, Soledad ran to where her parents lay. She found her father dead and her mother seriously injured. She rushed her mother to the hospital, but
the latter was pronounced dead on arrival.[5]
Dr. Enrique O.
Legaspi, III, the Municipal Health Officer of Mobo, Masbate, conducted a
post-mortem examination on Domingo Ramos and Percelina Ramos. He testified that all of the wounds
sustained by Domingo, except for one muscle-deep stab wound, were fatal as they
affected vital organs of the body.[6] Considering
the character of the wounds sustained by both the victims, Dr. Legaspi opined
that Domingo and Percelina Ramos could never have survived even with medical
attention.[7]
On March 25,
1991, Jenny Ramos filed a criminal complaint with the Municipal Circuit Trial
Court of Mobo-Milagros, Mobo, Masbate, against Alex and Rogito Rivera for
Murder.[8] The
circuit court found probable cause and forwarded the case to the Regional Trial
Court of Masbate, Masbate, for proper action.[9]
Subsequently, on January 7, 1992, Alex and Rogito Rivera were formally charged
with the crime of Multiple Murder in an Information which reads:
That on or about March 16, 1991, in
the afternoon thereof, at Barangay Bagacay, Mobo, Municipality of Mobo,
Province of Masbate, Philippines, within the jurisdiction of this Court, the
said accused conspiring and helping each other, with intent to kill, evident
premeditation, treachery and superiority of strength did then and there
willfully, unlawfully and feloniously attack, assault, hack and stab with bolos
spouses Domingo and Percelina Ramos, hitting them on the different parts of
their bodies, thereby inflicting wounds which directly caused their
instantaneous deaths.[10]
Alex Rivera was
arraigned on July 6, 1992 and pleaded not guilty to the charge.[11] His
brother, Rogito Rivera, remained at large and was arrested only on September 2,
1992.[12] On August
8, 1995, Rogito was arraigned and pleaded not guilty.[13]
By way of
defense, accused-appellant Alex Rivera testified that at 5:00 p.m. of March 16,
1991, he and his wife, Teresita Sanay Rivera, were walking along the feeder
road of Bagacay, Mobo, Masbate, when they were attacked by Domingo Ramos and
his son, Jenny Ramos. Alex Rivera
surmises that the attack was provoked by an earlier incident wherein Domingo
and Jenny asked him for money to buy liquor from a store but he refused to give
them any.[14] He further
testified that Domingo stabbed him and Jenny pelted him with stones, prompting
him to defend himself. Thus, he drew a
knife from his handbag, stabbed Domingo, then ran away. Jenny pursued him but failed to catch up
with him.[15]
For his part,
Rogito Rivera testified that at 5:20 p.m. of March 16, 1991, he was walking
along the feeder road on his way to the barangay proper when he met Domingo
Ramos, who was bloodied, and Jenny Ramos.
Jenny threw a stone at him while Domingo attacked him with a knife. Rogito hit Domingo with his bolo while
trying to parry the latter’s knife thrusts.[16] He denied
killing Percelina Ramos, saying that it was Domingo who stabbed his wife to
death.[17]
The brothers
presented the corroborative testimonies of their friend, Francisco Almocera,[18] and
brother-in-law, Jose Carmen.[19] Alex’s
wife, Tessie Rivera, was also scheduled to testify, but the prosecution
stipulated that her testimony if presented will be merely corroborative with
that of her husband.[20]
On January 22,
1996, the trial court rendered the assailed decision. Hence, this appeal raising the following errors, to wit:
I
THE TRIAL
COURT ERRED IN FINDING THAT CONSPIRACY EXISTS BETWEEN ACCUSED ALEX RIVERA AND
ROGITO RIVERA IN THE KILLING OF THE VICTIMS DOMINGO RAMOS AND PERCELINA RAMOS.
II
THE TRIAL
COURT ERRED IN CONVICTING ACCUSED ALEX RIVERA AND ROGITO RIVERA FOR THE CRIME
OF MURDER ON TWO COUNTS QUALIFIED BY ABUSE OF SUPERIOR STRENGTH INSTEAD OF
HOMICIDE.[21]
The appeal has
no merit.
It is evident at
the outset that the resolution of this appeal hinges on the issue of
credibility of witnesses. Once more, we
stress that the manner of assigning values to declarations of witnesses on the
witness stand is best and most competently performed by the trial judge who had
the unmatched opportunity to observe the witnesses and assess their credibility
by the various indicia available but not reflected on record. The demeanor of the person on the stand can
draw the line between fact and fancy or evince if the witness is telling the
truth or lying through his teeth.[22] We have
consistently ruled that when the question arises as to which of the conflicting
versions of the prosecution and the defense is worthy of belief, the assessment
of the trial courts are generally viewed as correct and entitled to great
weight.[23] Furthermore,
in an appeal, where the culpability or innocence of the accused depends on the
issue of credibility of witnesses and the veracity of their testimonies, findings of the trial court are given the
highest degree of respect if not finality.[24]
Equally
important is the trial court’s assessment of the substance and quality of the
testimony of the witnesses. In this
light, magistrates have always been guided by the legal truism that evidence to
be believed must not only proceed from the mouth of a credible witness, but
must be credible in itself.[25]
After a
circumspect study of the records, we find that the trial court did not err in
its appreciation of the credibility of the witnesses. Truly, the version of the defense is less plausible when
juxtaposed with that of the prosecution’s.
We agree with the
trial court when it pronounced that the version of the defense does not inspire
belief, thus:
The defense’ version of the
incident pointing to the victim Domingo Ramos as the aggressor, does not
inspire belief. It must be noted that
the prosecution witnesses repeatedly claimed that at the time of the incident,
Domingo Ramos was nursing an injury and in fact he was in crutches having met
an accident. This particular point,
remains up to this day, uncontradicted.
There is, therefore, no reason for this court to disbelieve such claim.
x x x
And if Domingo Ramos was in
crutches during the incident, the possibility of him initiating the attack
against the person accused, Alex Rivera, appears nil. x x x.[26]
Accused-appellant
Alex Rivera admitted on cross-examination that Domingo Ramos was in crutches at
the time of his death, but nonetheless proposed that the latter was able to run
and stab him.[27]
The trial court
also entertained doubts as to the veracity of the alleged second attack on
accused-appellant Rogito Rivera by the deceased, Domingo Ramos.[28] Indeed,
considering that the victim was limp and in crutches, it was highly improbable
that he was able to launch the second attack considering that he had already
sustained a fatal wound and was then profusely bleeding from the stab wound
inflicted earlier by Alex Rivera.[29]
Evidence to be
believed must be credible in itself, such that common experience and
observation of mankind lead to the inference of its probability under the
circumstances.[30] We share
the trial court’s view that it was highly improbable for Domingo Ramos, who was
at that time physically handicapped and later on fatally wounded, to be able to
engage himself in a violent scuffle.
With respect to
the manner in which Percelina Ramos was stabbed, Rogito Rivera had an even more
curious story to tell:
ATTY. APOYA
Q: When
you hit Domingo Ramos while you were parrying what happened to Domingo Ramos?
A: He
shouted.
Q: What
did he shout?
A: “Help
me!”
Q: What
did you do next after Domingo Ramos shouted for help?
A: His
wife approached him and pulled him and dragged him.
Q: What
happened next, if any?
A: When
his wife pulled him, he hit his wife when his wife was about to pull him. (emphasis
ours).
COURT
Q: You
said the wife helped and lent assistance to Domingo Ramos, and then the wife
was hit by Domingo Ramos, is that right?
A: Yes,
Your Honor.
Q: Was
the wife hit while she was dragging her husband?
A: Yes,
Your Honor.
Q: You
want to convey to the court that the wife came to the assistance of the husband
and she was hit by her husband?
A: Yes,
Your Honor. (emphasis ours) [31]
Rogito Rivera
and defense witness Francisco Almocera[32] insist
that Domingo Ramos, despite having sustained three lethal and penetrating
wounds and one muscle-deep wound, without discounting the fact of his
disability, had the strength to inflict a deadly penetrating stab wound on his
wife who was, after all, trying to help him.
We are certainly not persuaded.
Another defense
witness, Jose Carmen, in a vain attempt to corroborate the story of Rogito
Rivera, testified that it was impossible for either Alex or Rogito Rivera to
have stabbed Percelina, surmising that it was Domingo Ramos who stabbed his
wife.[33] His
testimony, however, consists of an opinion and not what he actually
perceived. By his own admission, he did
not see who stabbed Percelina Ramos.[34] Well-entrenched
is the rule that witnesses must state facts and not draw conclusions or draw
opinions unless otherwise permitted and excepted by the rules.[35] Jose
Carmen’s testimony does not fall under any of the recognized exceptions. Hence, his testimony cannot be relied upon.
In contrast, the
testimonies of Soledad and Jenny Ramos bear the earmarks of truth, sincerity,
and candidness. Their testimonies were
spontaneously and naturally delivered, and they withstood attempts of the
defense to discredit them. During her
cross-examination, fourteen year-old Soledad Ramos even shed tears as she was
forced to recount the brutal slaying of her father and the helplessness with
which she and her brother witnessed it.[36]
It has been held
time and again that relatives of the victim have a natural knack for
remembering the faces of the attackers.
They, more than anybody else, would be concerned with obtaining justice
for the victims by ensuring that the felons are brought to justice.[37] This is
especially true in the case at bar where minor children witnessed the killing
of their own parents. No doubt, this
kind of witnesses usually strive harder to remember the faces of the assailants[38] and
recall the manner in which the crime was committed. It is unnatural for the victim’s children, who are interested
only in vindicating the crime perpetrated against their parents, to accuse
somebody other than the real culprits.[39] If an
accused really had nothing to do with a crime, it would be against the natural
order of events and of human nature, and against the presumption of good faith,
that such a prosecution witness would falsely testify against him.[40]
Neither can the
witnesses’ relationship to the victims impair their credibility, where no
improper motive has been convincingly and reasonably brought up by the defense.[41] In this
case, no such ill motive was ever proffered by the accused-appellants.
In their brief,[42]
accused-appellants assert that Alex Rivera was not positively identified by
Jenny Ramos. The defense cites the
following testimony of Jenny Ramos when he was asked to point to the two
accused-appellants:
PROSECUTOR:
Q: By
the way, you mentioned of the two (2) names Alex and Rogito Rivera, if both of
them are inside the court would you point to them?
A: Yes,
Sir.
Q: Please
point to Rogito Rivera.
A: Witness
pointing to a person wearing white t-shirt and when asked
answered Rogito Rivera. (emphasis ours)
Q: How
about Alex Rivera?
A: Witness
pointing to a person inside the court room and when asked his name, answered Rogito
Rivera, wearing a stripe polo. (emphasis ours).[43]
Accused-appellants
contend that since the second person pointed out by Jenny Ramos answered to the
name of “Rogito Rivera” rather than “Alex Rivera” – the person being asked to
be pointed out – it stands to reason that Jenny Ramos failed to identify Alex
Rivera.
This point of
accused-appellants is unconvincing.
A closer
scrutiny of the testimony reveals that the second person who answered to the
name of “Rogito Rivera” was wearing a different shirt. There were clearly two different persons
pointed by the witness – one wearing a white t-shirt and the other wearing a
striped polo shirt. The logical
explanation, therefore, is that there must have been some typographical or
other error which caused the discrepancy in the transcripts. The portion of the testimony of Jenny Ramos
being referred to by accused-appellants is at best ambiguous. In any event, Soledad Ramos was able to
positively identify accused-appellant Alex Rivera. Well-entrenched is the rule in this jurisdiction that witnesses
are weighed, not numbered, such that the testimony of a single trustworthy and
credible witness may suffice to convict an accused.[44]
More
importantly, accused-appellants are barred from challenging their identification as the assailants. By pleading self-defense, accused-appellants
necessarily admitted the authorship of the killing, although they invoke
justification for the same.
Accused-appellants’
claim of self-defense is unavailing.
Self-defense is a time-worn excuse resorted to by assailants in appealed
criminal cases.[45] Like
alibi, self-defense is an inherently weak defense since it can easily be
concocted.[46]
Accordingly,
although it is a cardinal principle in criminal law that the prosecution has
the burden of proving the guilt of the accused, the rule is reversed where the
accused admits committing the crime but claims that he defended himself.[47] Thus, the
claim of self-defense by the accused-appellants shifts the burden of proof in
their area of responsibility.[48]
Accused-appellants must therefore show by strong, clear and convincing evidence
that the killing was justified and that, therefore, no criminal liability has
attached.[49]
To successfully
interpose self-defense, accused-appellants must clearly and convincingly
prove: (1) unlawful aggression on the
part of the victim; (2) reasonable necessity of the means employed to prevent
or repel the attack; and (3) the person defending himself must not have
provoked the victim into committing the act of aggression.[50] A plea of
self-defense can not be justifiably appreciated, where it is not only
uncorroborated by independent and competent evidence, but also extremely
doubtful by itself.[51]
Applying the
above-mentioned yardsticks in the case at bar, we find that the defense has not
proven by clear and convincing evidence its claim of self-defense. The version of the story on which the claim
of self-defense hinges is at best dubious if not incredible. One of accused-appellants’ flight to Ticao
Island after the incident betrays his guilt,[52] and
perforce becomes fatal to his claim of self-defense.
As earlier
stated, we find it difficult to believe that the victim Domingo Ramos, who was
limp and on crutches, initiated the attack on accused-appellant Alex Rivera
and, shortly after being seriously wounded from the encounter with the latter,
had the strength to assault Rogito Rivera.
Even more improbable is the supposition that Domingo even stabbed his
own wife to death after having sustained multiple fatal injuries. Besides, there appears no plausible reason
why Domingo Ramos would stab his wife who, after all, only came to his aid.
Accused-appellants,
realizing that their claim of self-defense was not clearly and convincingly
proven,[53] pray
that, at the very least, the mitigating circumstance of incomplete self-defense
be applied in their favor. This is
untenable. Even the said mitigating
circumstance cannot be considered in this case because the two other elements
of self-defense, namely, reasonable necessity of the means employed and lack of
sufficient provocation, are also absent.
Accused-appellant,
furthermore, acted in conspiracy. There
is conspiracy when two or more persons come to an agreement concerning the
commission of a felony and decide to commit it.[54] Proof of
an actual planning of the perpetration of the crime is not a condition
precedent for conspiracy to exist,[55] as direct
proof of conspiracy is rarely found.[56] Criminals
are certainly not credulous creatures expected to write down, much less,
indiscreetly announce their abhorrent and sinister plots and plans. Thus,
conspiracy may be deduced from the mode and manner in which the offense
was perpetrated or inferred from the acts of the accused evincing a joint or
common purpose and design; concerted action and community of interest.[57]
Soledad and
Jenny Ramos positively identified accused-appellants as their parents’
assailants. The evidence clearly shows
that both accused-appellants were seen carrying bolos when they attacked
Domingo Ramos. They were heard
challenging the victim to a fight and seen dragging their hapless victim
towards the locus criminis, where they took turns in stabbing and
hacking him to death. After that,
accused-appellants turned their sights on Domingo’s wife, Percelina. Alex Rivera caught up with Percelina Ramos
and hacked her to death as well.[58] The
aforementioned circumstances indubitably show accused-appellants’ uniform and
concerted action to kill Domingo and Percelina Ramos.
Conspiracy
having been established, accused-appellants are thus liable as co-principals
regardless of the extent and character of their participation because in
contemplation of law, the act of one is the act of all.[59]
Accused-appellants
challenge the trial court’s appreciation of the circumstance of abuse of
superior strength which qualified the crime to murder, saying that the same was
not alleged in the complaint originally filed with the Municipal Circuit Trial
Court of Mobo-Masbate, or in the Information filed with the Regional Trial
Court of Masbate, Masbate.
The contention
lacks merit.
It is true that
the complaint[60] which was
subscribed and sworn to by Jenny Ramos on March 15, 1991, accusing
accused-appellants of murder, did not allege abuse of superior strength. Nonetheless, the Information which was
subsequently filed with the Regional Trial Court of Masbate, Masbate by the
provincial prosecutor, and to which accused-appellants entered their pleas of
not guilty, specifically averred that the killing was committed with evident
premeditation, treachery and superiority of strength.
It can not,
therefore, be argued that accused-appellants were not apprised of the charges
against them or that they were deprived of the right to prepare their defense,
as in fact they did defend themselves and interposed self-defense and denial.
The original
complaint, furthermore, has no bearing insofar as the accused-appellants’
constitutional right to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation
against them is concerned. All criminal
actions either commenced by complaint or information shall be prosecuted under
the direction and control of the prosecutor.[61] The
appreciation of what crime or what circumstances are to be included and alleged
in the information is within the sound discretion and prerogative of the public
prosecutor, he being the public official specifically charged with the
prosecution of public offenses.
Moreover, complaints are mostly prepared in municipalities, without the
advice or help of counsel, and the prosecutor usually conducts another
investigation and files such information as the results thereof justify.[62]
Treachery is
present in the case at bar. The victim
was not in a position to defend himself, and the offenders consciously and
deliberately adopted the particular means, methods, or form of attack employed.[63] An attack
upon a person who could not put up a defense by reason of his temporary
physical handicap is treacherous.
According to the testimonies of prosecution witnesses, Domingo Ramos
clearly declared that he would not fight the Rivera brothers when he was
initially challenged by the latter. The
victim contended that he was limp and in crutches and that he had done nothing
wrong to accused-appellants. But
accused-appellants, bent on killing the defenseless victim, dragged him a few
meters down the river and there stabbed and hacked him to death.
There is
treachery when the offender commits any of the crimes against the person,
employing means, methods or forms in the execution thereof which tend directly
and specially to ensure its execution, without risk to himself arising from the
defense which the offended party might make.[64] It is of
no moment that the assault was preceded by a challenge to fight. We have consistently held that treachery may
still be appreciated even when the victim was forewarned of danger to his
person.[65] What is
decisive is that at the time the blow was struck, the deceased was helpless and
unable to defend himself.[66]
Treachery being
attendant in the slaying of Domingo Ramos, the killing is therefore qualified
to murder. Abuse of superior strength
is deemed absorbed in treachery and cannot thus be separately considered as a
generic aggravating circumstance.
On the other
hand, the killing of Percelina Ramos constituted murder qualified by abuse of
superior strength. An attack made by a
man with a deadly weapon upon an unarmed and defenseless woman constitutes
abuse of superiority which his sex and weapon used in the act afforded him and
from which the woman was unable to defend herself.[67]
The circumstance
of evident premeditation cannot be appreciated. No less than direct evidence of the planning and preparation when
the plan was conceived must be established by prosecution. Evident premeditation cannot be deduced from
mere presumption or speculation.[68] The
prosecution failed to clearly and directly establish evident premeditation.
Accused-appellant
Alex Rivera surrendered himself together with the knife he used in stabbing
Domingo Ramos to police officer Rene Danao the next day after the killing.[69] The
records do not show any arrest issued or made against him. Every circumstance in favor of the accused
must be considered.[70]
Consequently, the mitigating circumstance of voluntary surrender should be
appreciated in favor of Alex Rivera.[71] For
voluntary surrender to be appreciated as a mitigating circumstance, the
following requisites must concur: (1)
the offender had not been actually arrested; (2) the offender surrendered
himself to a person in authority; and (3) the surrender was voluntary.[72] All three
requisites are present in this case.
We note that
accused-appellants were charged with two separate criminal acts of murder in
one information. However, accused-appellants
did not move to quash the information on the ground of multiplicity of
charges. Hence, they are deemed to have
waived the defect. Consequently, the
trial court validly rendered judgment against the accused-appellants for as
many crimes as were alleged and proven.[73]
The trial court,
therefore, correctly convicted both accused-appellants of two counts of murder
for the killing of Domingo and Percelina Ramos. However, the penalty imposed on Alex Rivera should be modified in
view of the mitigating circumstance of voluntary surrender.
Article 248 of
the Revised Penal Code, before its amendment by Republic Act No. 7659,
prescribed the penalty of reclusion temporal maximum to death for
the crime of murder.
Taking into
consideration the mitigating circumstance of voluntary surrender and the
absence of any aggravating circumstance, and after applying the Indeterminate
Sentence Law, Alex Rivera should be sentenced to two indeterminate prison terms
for the two counts of murder, each of which has a minimum term within the range
of prision mayor maximum to reclusion temporal medium, and a
maximum term within reclusion temporal maximum.[74] He is,
thus, sentenced to the indeterminate penalty of twelve (12) years and one (1)
day of reclusion temporal, as minimum, to seventeen (17) years, four (4)
months and one (1) day of reclusion temporal, as maximum, for each count
of murder.
With respect to
Rogito Rivera, there being neither mitigating nor aggravating circumstance, he
should be sentenced to two counts of reclusion perpetua for each murder.
WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, the
decision of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 47 of Masbate, Masbate, in
Criminal Case No. 6547, finding accused-appellants Alex Rivera and Rogito
Rivera guilty beyond reasonable doubt of two counts of murder for the deaths of
Domingo and Percelina Ramos, is AFFIRMED with the MODIFICATION that
accused-appellant Alex Rivera is sentenced to suffer the indeterminate penalty
of twelve (12) years and one (1) day of reclusion temporal, as minimum, to
seventeen (17) years, four (4) months and one (1) day of reclusion temporal,
as maximum, for each count of murder.
Accused-appellant Rogito Rivera is sentenced to suffer the penalty of reclusion
perpetua, also for each count of murder.
Accused-appellants are further ordered to jointly and severally pay the
heirs of the victim the total amount of P100,000.00 as civil indemnity and the
total amount of P100,000.00 as moral damages.
Costs de
officio.
SO ORDERED.
Davide, Jr.,
C.J., (Chairman), Vitug, Kapunan, and Austria-Martinez, JJ., concur.
[1] Record, p. 172; penned by Assisting Judge Manuel S.
Pecson.
[2] TSN, September 16, 1992, pp. 2-4 and 11; TSN, March
8, 1993, p. 19.
[3] Ibid., p.
5.
[4] Ibid.
[5] Ibid., pp.
5-6.
[6] TSN, March 12, 1993, pp. 3-4 and 6.
[7] Ibid., pp.
8-9.
[8] Records, p. 2.
[9] Ibid., p.
37.
[10] Ibid., p.
1.
[11] Ibid., p.
45.
[12] Ibid., pp.
52 and 168.
[13] Ibid., p.
155.
[14] TSN, May 25, 1994, p. 6.
[15] Ibid., pp.
9-10.
[16] TSN, November 29, 1994, pp. 3-6.
[17] Ibid., pp.
6-7 and 18.
[18] TSN, April 11, 1994, pp. 1-13.
[19] TSN, April 4, 1994, pp. 1-16.
[20] TSN, April 11, 1994, pp. 13-14.
[21] Rollo, p.
75.
[22] People v.
Sanchez, 302 SCRA 21, 45 (1999).
[23] People v. Zabellero, 274 SCRA 627, 638 (1997).
[24] People v. Deleverio, 289 SCRA 547, 563 (1998).
[25] People v. Magpantay, 284 SCRA 96, 103 (1998),
citing People v. Baquiran, 20 SCRA 451, 454 (1967).
[26] Rollo, p.
16.
[27] TSN, May 25, 1994, p. 13.
[28] Ibid., p.
13.
[29] TSN, May 25, 1994, p. 10.
[30] People v.
Lagmay, 306 SCRA 157, 177 (1999).
[31] TSN, November 29, 1994, pp. 6-7.
[32] TSN, April 11, 1994, p. 7.
[33] TSN, April 04, 1994, p. 12.
[34] Ibid.
[35] People v. Galleno, 291 SCRA 761, 771 (1998).
[36] TSN, September 16, 1992, p. 11.
[37] People v.
Listerio, et al., G.R. No. 122099, July 5, 2000; People v. Fuertes,
296 SCRA 602 (1998).
[38] People v. Cawaling, 293 SCRA 267, 299 (1998).
[39] People v. Oliano, 287 SCRA 158, 170 (1998).
[40] People v.
Torre, et al., G.R. 130655, August 9, 2000.
[41] People v. Letigio, 268 SCRA 228, 243 (1997).
[42] Rollo, pp.
77-78.
[43] TSN, March 8, 1993, pp. 8-9.
[44] People v.
Dela Paz, Jr., 299 SCRA 86, 92 (1998).
[45] People v. Maalat, 275 SCRA 206, 211 (1997).
[46] People v. Noay, 296 SCRA 292, 303 (1998).
[47] People v. Magaro, 291 SCRA 681, 686 (1998).
[48] People v. Timblor, 285 SCRA 64, 75 (1998).
[49] People v. Ignacio, 270 SCRA 445, 450 (1997).
[50] People v. Villamor, 292 SCRA 384, 395 (1998).
[51] People v.
Janairo, 311 SCRA 58, 74 (1999).
[52] People v. Laceste, 293 SCRA 397, 408 (1998).
[53] Ibid., p.
76.
[54] Revised Penal Code, Article 8, 2nd paragraph.
[55] People v.
Botona, 304 SCRA 712, 733 (1999).
[56] People v.
Pagpaguitan, 315 SCRA 226, 243 (1999).
[57] People v.
Andales, 312 SCRA 738, 749 (1999).
[58] TSN, September 16, 1992, pp. 1-4; TSN, March 8, 1993,
pp. 1-7.
[59] People v.
Sanchez, 313 SCRA 254, 270 (1999).
[60] Records, p. 2.
[61] Rules of Court, Rule 110, Section 5.
[62] People v. Bangalao, et al., 94 Phil. 354, 356
(1954).
[63] People v.
Santillana, 308 SCRA 104, 118 (1999).
[64] Revised
Penal Code, Article 14, par. 16.
[65] People v.
Villonez, 298 SCRA 566, 583 (1998).
[66] United States v. Elicanal, 35 Phil. 209,
215-216.
[67] People v.
Suza, G.R. No. 130611, April 6,
2000.
[68] People v. Patawaran, 274 SCRA 130, 145 (1997).
[69] Records, p. 6.
[70] Sacay v. Sandiganbayan, 142 SCRA 593, 614
(1986).
[71] People v.
Cua, et al., G.R. No. 131925, March 9, 2000.
[72] People v. Sumalpong, 284 SCRA 464, 488 (1998).
[73] People v. Ducay, 225 SCRA 1, 19 (1993).
[74] People v.
Panela, G.R. No. 124475, November 29, 2000.