THIRD
DIVISION
|
NESTOR B. DECASA,
Petitioner, - versus - THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS and THE PEOPLE
OF THE Respondents. |
|
G.R. No.
172184 Present: YNARES-SANTIAGO,
Chairperson, AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, CHICO-NAZARIO, and NACHURA,*
JJ. Promulgated: |
x - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -x
CHICO-NAZARIO, J.:
In this
Petition for Certiorari under Rule 65
of the Revised Rules of Court,[1]
petitioner Nestor B. Decasa prays for the reversal of
the Decision dated 26 April 2005[2]
and Resolution dated 23 February 2006[3] of
the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR No. 23072, affirming with modification the
Decision dated 21 August 1998[4] of
the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 50, Loay, Bohol, in Criminal Case No. 8006, finding petitioner guilty
beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of homicide.
On
That on or about 29th
day of August, 1992, in the municipality of Bilar,
province of Bohol, Philippines, and within the
jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, with intent to
kill and without justifiable cause, did then and there willfully, unlawfully
and feloniously assault, attack, strike and/or stab with the use of a sharp-bladed, sharp-pointed
weapon one Teodoro Luzano thereby
inflicting injuries on the vital parts of the victim’s body causing his
untimely death; to the damage and prejudice of the heirs of the victim in the
amount to be proved during the trial.
Acts committed contrary
to the provisions of Article 249 of the Revised Penal Code as amended.[5]
When
arraigned on
The
testimonies of all the prosecution witnesses[6]
and the first five witnesses for the defense[7]
were heard before Judge Achilles Melicor (Judge Melicor) of RTC, Branch 4,
The
factual antecedents as viewed by the prosecution are summarized in the Comment
dated
1. On August 29, 1992, at around 8 o’clock
in the evening, Rogelio Boco was gathering tuba from
a coconut tree located near a canal at Riverside, Bilar,
Bohol, when he chanced upon petitioner Nestor Decasa and Teodoro Luzano arguing heatedly about water [for their respective ricefields].
2. From a distance of about five (5)
meters and as a bright moon illuminated the area, Rogelio Boco
saw petitioner Nestor Decasa hack Teodoro
at the back portion of the latter’s neck and again on the forehead near the
eyebrow. Teodoro
fell down.
3. After the incident, Rogelio went home.
Early the next morning, he went to the same place to gather tuba. There, he saw Teodoro’s
corpse lying near a coconut tree.
4. Rogelio summoned his neighbors to
witness what he saw. He was investigated and thereafter executed an affidavit before
the MCTC of Bilar,
5. Dr. Maria Nenita
Tumanda, Rural Health Physician of Batuan, Bohol conducted a
post-mortem examination on the body of Teodoro Luzano and issued a Post-Mortem Report (Exhibit A) and
Death Certificate (Exhibit B) with the following findings:
“The cause of the death
was hypovolemic shock secondary to hemorrhage due to
multiple wounds on the head, chest, and extremities, which could have been
caused by a sharp-edged and pointed instrument, like a bolo. The immediate cause of death was cardiopulmonary
arrest.”
Petitioner
vehemently denied the foregoing accusations.
He disclaimed any liability for the death of Teodoro
Luzano (Teodoro). The compendium of his defenses and arguments is
contained in the RTC Decision dated
The last witness for the
defense was accused Nestor Decasa himself, 30 years
old, college level, and a resident of
He
has been staying in the house of his parents-in-law, Bernardino and Francisca
Llano Macalolot after getting married to their
daughter Luz on
It
is not true that he killed Teodoro Luzano. In the
afternoon of August 29, 1992, he was making hollow blocks together with his
younger brother, Domingo, at the site where his house was supposed to be
constructed, about 100 meters from the house of his parents-in-law. They worked up to
Throughout
the entire night of
Rogelio
Boco’s testimony that in the evening of
He
is a tenant of a ricefield owned by the late Judge Espiritu which source of water is called “Bogwak.” The source
of water of Teodoro’s ricefield
is the Logarita Spring. Logarita Spring and
Bogwak are two different sources of water. It is Rogelio Boco
who has a ricefield near that of Teodoro
which also gets water from Logarita Spring. Rogelio is also tilling another ricefield (owned by somebody from Dauis)
which is near his ricefield and has its source of
water from Bogwak.
It is not true that there was a time before
As
a farmer, he worked on a piece of land located at
The
land he is working on at
After
consideration of the respective evidence of the prosecution and defense in a
trial proper, the RTC rendered a Decision on
Dr. Tumanda examined the corpse of Teodoro.
According to her findings, Teodoro’s death was caused by “hypovolemic
shock secondary to hemorrhage due to multiple wounds on the head, chest, and
extremities, which could have been caused by a sharp-edged and pointed
instrument, like a bolo. The immediate
cause of death was cardio-pulmonary arrest.” Francisca Boco
is the wife of Rogelio. She testified
that on
Alona was
the daughter of Teodoro. On
In his
rebuttal testimony, Fermin claimed that he used to
work on a riceland at Riverside, Biliran,
owned by a certain Juan Item; that in 1992, Bernardino Macalolot
(petitioner’s father-in-law) and petitioner began working on the said riceland; and that the said riceland
and the riceland of Teodoro
had the same source of water called “Bogwak.”
Pathetically,
the RTC did not find worthy the testimonies of the defense witnesses namely,
petitioner; Municipal Circuit Trial Court (MCTC)-Sevilla,
Petitioner
insists that he has nothing to do with the death of Teodoro.
Petitioner asserts that he had dinner with his wife, Luz, and the latter’s
relatives on the evening of
Aquilino (uncle
of petitioner) testified that Rogelio had a ricefield
which was very near the ricefield of Teodoro, and that these ricefields
had the same source of water called “Logarita.” Loreto was a barangay
councilman in
The RTC
completely rejected petitioner’s defense of alibi and held that overall, the
testimonies of the prosecution witnesses pointed to the accused as the guilty
party. In closing, the RTC held:
WHEREFORE, premises
considered, the court finds accused Nestor Decasa
alias Toto guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of Homicide and, in the
absence of mitigating or aggravating circumstances, hereby sentences him to an
indeterminate penalty of EIGHT YEARS AND ONE DAY TO SEVENTEEN YEARS and FOUR
MONTHS. The accused is further ordered to indemnify the heirs of the victim
Fifty Thousand (P50,000.00) Pesos as death indemnity and Twenty Five
Thousand (P25,000.00) Pesos in actual damages.[11]
Aggrieved,
the petitioner filed an appeal with the Court of Appeals. On
WHEREFORE, the instant
Appeal is hereby DISMISSED, and the assailed Decision of the Regional Trial
Court, 7th Judicial Region, Branch 50, Loay,
Bohol, in Criminal Case No. 8006 is AFFIRMED with
modification as follows: sentencing accused to suffer the indeterminate penalty
of Six (6) Years and One (1) Day of Prision Mayor, as
minimum, to Fourteen (14) Years Eight (8) Months and One (1) Day of Reclusion
Temporal, as maximum.[13]
Petitioner
filed a Motion for Reconsideration[14]
of the Decision of the Court of Appeals but this was denied by the appellate
court in its Resolution dated
On
I.
THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS GRAVELY ERRED IN
NOT DECLARING THAT THE GUILT OF THE HEREIN PETITIONER OF THE CRIME CHARGED WAS
NOT ESTABLISHED BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT.
II.
THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS LIKEWISE GRAVELY
ERRED IN NOT DECLARING THAT THE PROSECUTION FAILED TO OVERCOME BY THEIR EVIDENCE
THE CONSTITUTIONAL PRESUMPTION OF THE PETITIONER’S INNOCENCE.
III.
THE COURT OF APPEALS GRAVELY ERRED IN CONVICTING
THE PETITIONER BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT DESPITE THE PRESENCE OF CLEAR FACTS AND
CIRCUMSTANCES SUPPORTED BY EVIDENCE
WHICH BRING FORTH GRAVE DOUBTS AS TO THE VERACITY AND CREDIBILITY OF
PROSECUTION’S EVIDENCE, BOTH TESTIMONIAL AND DOCUMENTARY.
IV.
THE COURT OF APPEALS GRAVELY ERRED IN CONVICTING
THE PETITIONER INSPITE AND DESPITE THE FACT THAT THE EVIDENCE OF THE
PROSECUTION IS UTTERLY INSUFFICIENT TO SUSTAIN A CONVICTION BEYOND REASONABLE
DOUBT.[16]
In sum,
petitioner enucleates that the Court of Appeals erred in convicting him despite
the utter absence of evidence to sustain his conviction beyond reasonable doubt.
Petitioner
argues that the RTC and the Court of Appeals committed grave abuse of
discretion in giving credence to the testimony of eyewitness Rogelio since
there were grave and irreconcilable inconsistencies in the latter’s affidavit
and court testimony. According to
petitioner, when Rogelio executed his affidavit and was subjected to a
preliminary examination two weeks after the incident, he never mentioned
therein that he actually saw the hacking of Teodoro
by petitioner. It was only during the
trial on the merits of the instant case that Rogelio for the first time
testified that he personally witnessed the hacking of Teodoro
by petitioner. In fact, the RTC narrated
in its assailed decision the following set of facts: (1) Rogelio did not
mention in his affidavit that he saw the hacking of Teodoro
by petitioner; (2) when Rogelio executed and swore to his affidavit before
Judge Vaño of the MCTC of Bilar,
the latter read to Rogelio the contents of his affidavit in the Visayan dialect; (3)
Rogelio understood the contents of his affidavit and affixed his signature
thereon; (4) the said affidavit contains the entire story of what Rogelio
witnessed on 29 August 1992; and (5) from all indications, Rogelio understood
the questions of Judge Vaño which were translated into
the Visayan dialect.[17]
Petitioner
contends that despite the aforementioned narration of facts made by the RTC,
the trial court and the Court of Appeals still chose to believe the testimony
of Rogelio.
Petitioner
further asserts that the RTC and the Court of Appeals failed to consider the
ill motive which Rogelio harbored against petitioner and Teodoro;
that the assailed decisions of the RTC and the Court of Appeals are described
in legal circles as “speculative conviction”; that Rogelio’s testimony that he
does not usually gather tuba at nighttime is inconsistent with his own
testimony that he was gathering tuba on the night he witnessed the incident;
that the RTC erred in finding that “Rogelio
did not immediately report the incident to the police because he had already
informed Josefina, wife of Teodoro, and it was
Josefina who informed the police,” as there was no evidence showing that she
made such report to the police; that Rogelio’s testimony that the first person
he informed about the incident was his neighbor, Jesus Quimpan
(Jesus), has no basis since Jesus was never presented as a witness by the
prosecution; that Rogelio made a false testimony when he narrated that he
clearly saw the incident because of the moonlight; that the calendar year for
August 1992 shows that the full moon was on 13 August, the last quarter was on
21 August, and new moon on 28 August 1992; that the RTC found that Rogelio had merely
“heard” the quarrel between petitioner and Teodoro, and
that he had not actually seen the hacking; that the jurisprudence which states
that “the trial court’s findings are
entitled to great respect since it had the opportunity to observe the demeanor
of witnesses and, therefore, was in a better position to appraise their
credibility” does not apply in the present case on the ground that the bulk
of the evidence for the prosecution, including the entire testimony of Rogelio,
was “not personally heard” by Judge Calibo; that Judge
Calibo used to be a subordinate of the fiscal in
charge of the instant case and who had engaged the defense counsel in heated
arguments during the trial; and that the aforesaid circumstance shows the biased
nature of the assailed RTC decision.[18]
The
contentions are devoid of merit.
When
Rogelio was asked during the trial why it is not reflected in his affidavit that
he actually saw petitioner hack Teodoro, he explained
that he believed that everything he said was already included in his affidavit,
including that part wherein he actually saw petitioner hack Teodoro,
viz:
He [Rogelio] was
investigated by the police anent this case at the Municipal Hall of Bilar where he also executed an affidavit (Exhibit “1” for
the defense). It was Fred Pangan, Acting Chief of Police, who took his affidavit,
Fred Pangan asked him questions relative to the
incident, and he told him everything that he saw. However,
when he was asked to explain why it is not reflected in his affidavit that he
actually saw the accused hack Teodoro Luzano, he answered that he believed that everything he
said were already included in his affidavit, including that part wherein he
actually saw Nestor hack Teodoro.[19]
As can
be gleaned from the foregoing, it was Rogelio’s honest belief that he was able
to state in his affidavit the fact that he saw petitioner hack Teodoro. Rogelio’s elucidation is understandable and does
not affect his credibility since witnesses cannot be expected to give a
flawless testimony all the time. This is
even more true if they are called to testify on details of a harrowing and
frightening event which unfolded before their eyes.[20] What is decisive and significant is that
Rogelio saw the petitioner hack Teodoro and that he
testified on such fact during the trial.
More
importantly, this Court had consistently ruled that the alleged inconsistencies
between the testimony of a witness in open court and his sworn statement before
the investigators are not fatal defects to justify a reversal of judgment. Such discrepancies do not necessarily
discredit the witness since ex-parte affidavits are almost always incomplete. A sworn statement or an affidavit does purport
to contain a complete compendium of the details of the event narrated by the
affiant. Sworn statements taken ex parte are
generally considered to be inferior to the testimony given in open court.[21]
It
should also be stressed that the testimony of Rogelio is consistent with the
findings of Dr. Tumanda. Rogelio narrated that petitioner hacked Teodoro on the head with a bolo-like instrument.[22] Dr. Tumanda declared
that the multiple injuries sustained by Teodoro on
the head were caused by a sharp-edged and pointed instrument like a bolo.[23] This circumstance bolsters the credibility of
Rogelio’s testimony.[24]
Petitioner’s
rantings on the supposed ill motive which Rogelio had
against him deserve scant consideration. The existence of a grudge does not
automatically render the testimony of a witness false and unreliable.[25]
Further, it should be noted that the conflict between petitioner and Rogelio was
already settled before their Barangay Council.[26] Motive is essential for conviction when there
is doubt as to the identity of the culprit.[27] In the instant case, the imputation of ill motive
is already inconsequential as Rogelio personally witnessed the hacking of Teodoro by petitioner.
The
inconsistencies in the testimony of Rogelio cited by petitioner refer to minor
and insignificant details which do not impair the credibility of Rogelio as a
witness. Rogelio did not categorically
testify that there was never an instance when he gathered tuba at nighttime. He merely
stated that he does not usually gather
tuba at nighttime;[28]
thus, he does not preclude the possibility that, on the day of the incident,
Rogelio opted to gather tuba at night
rather than during daytime. Besides,
what is vital is that Rogelio specifically testified in court that he was
gathering tuba on the night he saw
the petitioner hack Teodoro.
In
support of his contention that Rogelio did not clearly see the hacking incident
as there was no moonlight at that time, petitioner presented the calendar year
for August 1992 which shows that the full moon was on 13 August, the last
quarter was on 21 August and the new moon on 28 August.[29] This circumstance does not carry much weight
since Rogelio was merely five meters away from the petitioner and Teodoro when he heard the two arguing and then saw petitioner
subsequently hacking Teodoro. Moreover, Rogelio was very familiar with the
physical features[30]
and voices of petitioner and Teodoro because the
petitioner’s wife is his relative, and both petitioner and Teodoro
also reside in
Indeed,
the discrepancies in Rogelio’s testimony do not damage the essential integrity
of the prosecution’s evidence in its material whole. Instead, the discrepancies
only erase suspicion that the testimony was rehearsed or concocted. These honest inconsistencies serve to strengthen
rather than destroy Rogelio’s credibility.[31]
It may
be true that no evidence was adduced in support of Rogelio’s testimony that it
was Josefina who reported the incident to the police and that Jesus, his
neighbor, was the first person he informed about the incident. However, proofs
of these allegations are not necessary in view of the candid and straightforward
testimony of Rogelio, as corroborated by five other prosecution witnesses. Truly, an accused may be convicted on the sole
basis of the positive and credible testimony of an eyewitness.[32]
Petitioner
draws attention to the fact that Judge Calibo did not
hear the bulk of the prosecution’s evidence, including the entire testimony of
Rogelio, and hence, did not have the opportunity to observe the demeanor of the
witness.
It is
not unusual for a judge who did not wholly try a case to decide it on the basis
of the records on hand after the trial judge who had heard almost entirely the
testimony of the witnesses died, resigned, retired, transferred, and so forth. Relative thereto, we have held in several
cases that the fact that the judge who heard the evidence is not the one who
rendered the judgment; and that for the same reason, the latter did not have
the opportunity to observe the demeanor of the witnesses during the trial but
merely relied on the records of the case does not render the judgment
erroneous.[33] Even though the judge who penned the decision
was not the judge who heard the testimonies of the witnesses, such is not
enough reason to overturn the findings of fact of the trial court on the
credibility of witnesses.[34] It may be true that the trial judge who
conducted the hearing would be in a better position to ascertain the truth or
falsity of the testimonies of the witnesses, but it does not necessarily follow
that a judge who was not present during the trial cannot render a valid and
just decision.[35] The efficacy of a decision is not necessarily
impaired by the fact that its writer only took over from a colleague who had
earlier presided at the trial.[36] That a judge did not hear a case does not
necessarily render him less competent in assessing the credibility of
witnesses. He can rely on the
transcripts of stenographic notes of their testimony and calibrate them in
accordance with their conformity to common experience, knowledge and
observation of ordinary men. Such
reliance does not violate substantive and procedural due process of law.[37]
As is
herein, Judge Calibo did not merely rely on the
records of the case, such as transcripts of stenographic notes and relevant
documents, in rendering his decision. In
addition thereto, he also conducted an ocular inspection of the scene of the
crime in order to evaluate the veracity of Rogelio’s testimony.[38]
Petitioner
tries to impart that Judge Calibo was biased in
rendering the assailed RTC Decision, since he used to be a subordinate of the
fiscal in charge of the instant case and had heated arguments with the defense
counsel during the trial.
Mere
imputation of bias and partiality against a judge is not enough, since bias and
partiality can never be presumed.[39] There was no evidence showing that the fiscal
in the present case had unduly influenced Judge Calibo
in convicting petitioner for homicide. In
the absence of such proof, petitioner’s bare assertion cannot overturn the
presumption of regularity in the performance by Judge Calibo
of his official duty.[40]
Petitioner
also tries to discredit the court testimonies of Francisca Boco,
Josefina (Teodoro’s wife), and Alona
(Teodoro’s daughter). According to petitioner, the
testimonies of Francisca Boco and Josefina are mere
afterthoughts, for they never executed any affidavits in connection with the
instant case. As regards Alona, her testimony was practically nil, considering that
there are some facts which she “deliberately” omitted in her affidavit.
We
reject these protestations.
The
testimonies of Francisca and Josefina were duly offered in court by the
prosecution as evidence. Francisca and
Josefina also swore under oath before making their court statements. Moreover, their testimonies corroborated
Rogelio’s testimony on material and substantial points.[41] Indeed,
their testimonies are not mere afterthoughts and the execution of affidavits on
their part is unnecessary in light of their personal testimonies before the
trial court.
As to Alona, it appears that, really, she omitted some facts in
her affidavit. However, this does not
necessarily negate her testimony since she was able to satisfactorily explain
the reason for such omission, thus:
Upon cross-examination,
she [Alona] declared that she executed an affidavit
in connection with this case. However,
there are some facts which she deliberately omitted in her affidavit. The fact that Nestor passed by their house and
forewarned her mother to stop her father otherwise he would crush his head, and
the fact that when accused passed by, she said “Good evening” but the accused
did not answer, were not mentioned in her affidavit because during the preliminary examination, and when her affidavit was
taken, she was still in the state of sorrow and her mindset was still unstable.[42] (Emphasis ours.)
The
fact that Josefina and Alona were the wife and
daughter, respectively, of Teodoro, makes their
testimonies more credible, as it would be unnatural for a relative interested
in vindicating a crime done to their family to accuse somebody other than the
real culprit.[43]
In an
effort to exonerate himself from any liability in the killing of Teodoro, petitioner interposed the defense of denial and
alibi. He alleges that he and his wife
had been staying/residing in the house of his wife’s parents at
Denial
is inherently a weak defense as it is negative and self-serving. It cannot
prevail over the positive identification and testimonies of witnesses unless
buttressed by strong evidence of non-culpability. Corollarily, alibi
is the weakest of all defenses for it is easy to contrive and difficult to disprove.
For alibi to prosper, it is not enough for the accused to prove that he was
somewhere else when the crime was committed. He must likewise prove that it was physically
impossible for him to be present at the crime scene or its immediate vicinity
at the time of its commission.[44]
Thus, even
assuming that petitioner was sleeping in their bedroom throughout the entire
night of 29 August 1992, it was not physically impossible for him to be at the
crime scene which was in a canal near Riverside, Bilar,
Bohol, on the night of the incident. The distance between the house of his
parents-in-law where he slept, and the canal where the hacking took place, is
merely 100 meters.[45] Obviously, he could easily reach the canal at
any time to perpetrate the crime charged.
As the
petitioner failed to substantiate his defenses of denial and alibi, the
positive and credible testimonies of Rogelio and the rest of the prosecution
witnesses must prevail.
It must
also be emphasized that when the credibility of a witness is in issue, the
findings of fact of the trial court, its calibration of the testimonies of the
witnesses and its assessment of the probative weight thereof, as well as its
conclusions anchored on said findings are accorded high respect if not
conclusive effect.[46] This is more true if such findings were
affirmed by the appellate court, since it is settled that when the trial
court’s findings have been affirmed by the appellate court, said findings are
generally binding upon this Court.[47] In the case before us, we find no compelling
reason to depart from the RTC‘s finding of guilt of
petitioner for homicide as affirmed by the Court of Appeals, as these findings
are supported by the evidence on record.
With
regard to the damages, we sustain the award of civil indemnity in the amount of
P50,000.00 consistent with prevailing jurisprudence.[48] However,
the award of actual damages in the amount of P25,000.00 is unwarranted since the heirs of Teodoro failed to present funeral and burial receipts.[49] Nevertheless, we have held in several cases
that temperate damages in the amount of P25,000.00 shall be awarded
where no documentary evidence of actual damages was presented in the trial
court because it is reasonable to presume that, when death occurs, the family
of the victim necessarily incurs expenses for his wake and funeral.[50]
WHEREFORE, the Decision and
Resolution of the Court of Appeals dated P25,000.00 in favor of the heirs of Teodoro.
No costs.
SO
ORDERED.
|
|
MINITA V. CHICO-NAZARIO
Associate Justice |
WE
CONCUR:
Associate Justice
Chairperson
MA. ALICIA AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ
Associate Justice |
ANTONIO
EDUARDO B. NACHURA
Associate Justice |
|
|
|
I attest that the conclusions in the
above Decision were reached in consultation before the case was assigned to the
writer of the opinion of the Court’s Division.
|
|
CONSUELO YNARES-SANTIAGO Associate Justice Chairperson, Third
Division |
Pursuant to Article VIII, Section 13
of the Constitution, and the Division Chairman’s Attestation, it is hereby
certified that the conclusions in the above Decision were reached in
consultation before the case was assigned to the writer of the opinion of the
Court’s Division.
|
|
REYNATO S. PUNO
Chief Justice |
*
No part.
[1] Rollo, pp. 3-30.
[2] Penned
by Associate Justice Vicente L. Yap with Associate Justices Isaias
P. Dicdican and Enrico A. Lanzanas concurring; id. at 53-59.
[3]
[4]
[5]
[6] Rogelio
Boco, Dr. Maria Nenita Tumanda, Francisca Boco, Alona L. Dordas and Josefina M. Luzano; id. at 54.
[7] MCTC-Bilar, Judge Felina D. Vaño, Luz M. Decasa, Jaime L Macalolot, Francisca L. Macalolot
and Aquilino S. Decasa; id.
[8]
[9]
[10]
[11]
[12]
[13]
[14]
[15]
[16]
[17]
[18]
[19]
[20] People v. Pateo,
G.R. No. 156786,
[21] People v. Beltran, Jr., G.R. No. 168051,
27 September 2006, 503 SCRA 715, 729; People
v. Lazaro, 319 Phil. 352, 361 (1995); People v. Layno,
332 Phil. 612, 625 (1996); People v. Foncardas, G.R. No. 144598, 6 February 2004, 422 SCRA 356,
370.
[22] Rollo, pp.
130-131.
[23]
[24] People v. Larranaga,
G.R. No. 138874-75,
[25] People v.
[26] Rollo, pp. 40 and
50.
[27] People v. Yatar, G.R. No. 150224,
[28] Rollo, p. 32.
[29]
[30]
People v. Moriles,
Jr., G.R. No. 153248,
[31] People v. Pateo, supra
note 19 at 615.
[32] Lapuz v. People, G.R. No. 150050,
[33] People v. Comadre,
G.R. No. 153559,
[34] People v. Buayaban,
448 Phil. 57, 67 (2003).
[35] People v. Hapa,
413 Phil. 679, 695 (2001).
[36] People v. Sansaet,
426 Phil. 827, 833 (2002).
[37] People v. Cadley,
G.R. No. 150735,
[38] Rollo, p. 50.
[39] Causin v. Demecillo,
A.M. No. RTJ-04-1860,
[40] Grieve v. Jaca,
A.M. No. MTJ-01-1351,
[41] Rollo, pp. 35-39.
[42]
[43] People v. Werba,
G.R. No. 144599,
[44] People v. Aguila,
G.R. No. 171017,
[45] Rollo, p. 43.
[46] People v. Aguila,
supra note 43.
[47]
[48] People v. Delim,
444 Phil. 430, 470-471 (2003).
[49] Rollo, p. 37.
[50] People v. Moriles,
Jr., G.R. No. 153248, 25 March 2004, 426 SCRA 358, 368; People v. Buayaban,
supra note 33 at 77; People v. Abrazaldo, 445 Phil. 109, 126 (2003).